MISSION STATEMENTThe National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) leads by exampleas it strives to improve simultaneously the quality of education for thoughtfulparticipation in a democracy and the quality of the preparation of educators. TheNNER works through partnerships among P-12 schools, institutions of highereducation, and communities. Members of the Network agree on a four-partmission to advance Education in Democracy, which is as follows:

• provide access to knowledge for all children (“equity and excellence”);• educate the young for thoughtful participation in a social and political

democracy (“enculturation”);• base teaching on knowledge of the subjects taught, established principles

of learning, and sensitivity to the unique potential of learners (“nurturingpedagogy”); and

• take responsibility for improving the conditions for learning inP-12 schools, institutions of higher education and communities(“stewardship”).

ENABLING ACTIONSMembers of the Network assert that quality schooling for a democracyand quality preparation of educators can best be accomplished by sharingresponsibility for the following actions:

• engaging university faculty in the arts and sciences, education, publicschools, and community members as equal partners collectivelyresponsible for the Agenda;

• promoting and including partnership settings nationally andinternationally that together represent urban, suburban, and ruralcommunities, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse public schooland university students, and a broad range of public and private teachereducation institutions of varying sizes and missions;

• inquiring into and conducting research pertinent to educational practicesand the renewal of public schools and the education of educators;

• proposing and monitoring federal, state and local policy that supports theimplementing the Agenda for Education in a Democracy;

• providing opportunities for professional and leadership development forparticipants in NNER settings.

#YESALLWOMEN: Advancing Community in a Democratic Society

Volume 11 | October 2019

2

EDITOR

Rhonda B. Jeffries, PhDUniversity of South Carolina

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTSAyan Mitra, University of South CarolinaYuechen Sun, University of South Carolina

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD

Allison Anders, PhD University of South Carolina

Gloria Boutte, PhD University of South Carolina

Nathaniel Bryan, PhD Miami University of Ohio

Baron R. Davis, PhD South Carolina Richland School District Two

Peter Duffy, Ed.D University of South Carolina

Minuette Floyd, PhD University of South Carolina

Crystal Polite Glover, PhD Winthrop University

John Hale, PhD University of South Carolina

Tambra O. Jackson, PhD Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis

3

Marla Jaksch, PhD The College of New Jersey

Meca Williams Johnson, PhD Georgia Southern University

Anthony Keith, Jr., PhD The Future Project, Washington DC

James Kirylo, PhD University of South Carolina

Chelda Smith Kondo, PhD Georgia Southern University

Susi Long, PhD University of South Carolina

Amy Lueck, PhD Santa Clara University

Leah McAllister-Shields, PhD University of Houston

Spencer Platt, PhD University of South Carolina

Toni Williams, PhD University of South Carolina

Erin Kahunawaika‘ala Wright, PhD University of Hawaii at Manoa

Kamania Wynter-Hoyte, PhD University of South Carolina

If you are interested in serving on the editorial review board, please submit a letter of inquiry and curriculum vita or resume to nnerjour@sc.edu

MISSION STATEMENTThe National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) leads by exampleas it strives to improve simultaneously the quality of education for thoughtfulparticipation in a democracy and the quality of the preparation of educators. TheNNER works through partnerships among P-12 schools, institutions of highereducation, and communities. Members of the Network agree on a four-partmission to advance Education in Democracy, which is as follows:

• provide access to knowledge for all children (“equity and excellence”);• educate the young for thoughtful participation in a social and political

democracy (“enculturation”);• base teaching on knowledge of the subjects taught, established principles

of learning, and sensitivity to the unique potential of learners (“nurturingpedagogy”); and

• take responsibility for improving the conditions for learning inP-12 schools, institutions of higher education and communities(“stewardship”).

ENABLING ACTIONSMembers of the Network assert that quality schooling for a democracyand quality preparation of educators can best be accomplished by sharingresponsibility for the following actions:

• engaging university faculty in the arts and sciences, education, publicschools, and community members as equal partners collectivelyresponsible for the Agenda;

• promoting and including partnership settings nationally andinternationally that together represent urban, suburban, and ruralcommunities, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse public schooland university students, and a broad range of public and private teachereducation institutions of varying sizes and missions;

• inquiring into and conducting research pertinent to educational practicesand the renewal of public schools and the education of educators;

• proposing and monitoring federal, state and local policy that supports theimplementing the Agenda for Education in a Democracy;

• providing opportunities for professional and leadership development forparticipants in NNER settings.

#YESALLWOMEN: Advancing Community in a Democratic Society

Volume 11 | October 2019

5

17

38

54

72

Keeping Women in Their Place? Post-Secondary Math Placement Testing as a Barrier to Gender Equity in STEM

Robin L. Angotti, Karen Rosenberg & Rejoice Akapame

Choosing to Teach Young Children: Compensation and the Intersectionality of Gender, Race and Immigration Mary DeBey & Shaheen Usmani

Connect, Cultivate, Campaign:Toward a Social Movement Approach to Educational ChangeTricia Niesz

Feminist Epistemology and Epistemological Pluralism: Implications for the Development of Democratic CitizensAaron S. Zimmerman

— ARTICLES —

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS#YESALLWOMEN: Advancing Community in a Democratic Society

Volume 11 | October 2019

— JOURNAL INTRODUCTION —

87

The Experiences and Contributions of Women Toward a Democratic SocietyRhonda B. Jeffries

— AUTHOR BIOS —Author Bios Volume 11

— JOURNAL INTRODUCTION —

7

Editors’ IntroductionThe Experiences and Contributions of Women

Toward a Democratic Society

Rhonda B. Jeffries

University of South Carolina

Introduction

Despite periods of focus on women’s access and achievement

within the educational arena, the field of education has yet to

actualize the knowledge gleaned from studies of the issues,

challenges, and social gains impacting the educational experience

of women. Historically, feminist studies have largely been

isolated to disciplines such as women’s studies, sociology, and

ethnic studies with tangential discussions of these disciplines’

relationship to democracy in the United States. In the female

dominated field of education, examinations on the unique

contributions of women marginally capitalized on the

groundbreaking work of Gilligan (1982) and Noddings (1984)

which challenged the normative, patriarchal systems governing

United States education and society. Further research that

significantly shaped perceptions of United States education and

called into question the effects of race and ethnicity upon gender

oppression emerged from hooks (1981) and Collins (1990) and

highlighted identity differences that exist within the realm of the

female experience aside from the dichotomy traditionally

associated between female and male (McCarthy & Apple, 1988;

Weis, 1983).

This collective body of work left us with persistent questions

about how democracy is defined regarding gender and the

complexity of serving the interests of females through the

political construct of formal, public education. A call for more

flexible concepts of citizenship and the ways in which women

8

contribute to the social state underpins the quest to enhance the

acknowledgment of women as valued producers of knowledge

who shape policy and practice through education (Arnot &

Dillabough, 1999).

Contemporarily, we are reminded of the critical nature of

human rights education and the persistent need to monitor and

maintain transformative spaces where ideological discussion

about civil liberties occur with the expected outcome of

advancing the rights and privileges of women, children, people of

color and immigrants (Giroux, 2015; Spreen, Monaghan, &

Hillary, 2018). The ongoing struggle for democratic education

grounded in an ethic of care continues to emerge across the

literature as calls for restoring a primary focus on justice and

equality in schools in the United States are championed.

Furthermore, a vision for revolutionary leadership to guide this

charge might be realized through a greater reliance on and

inclusion of the contributions of women (Horsford, 2017).

The need still exists for research that moves beyond the binary

exchange of women’s ways of knowing as a wholesale

replacement for masculine political power. Educational

institutions are primary among the social organizations that will

benefit from a broadened narrative about women and democracy;

however, the rudimentary challenges of strengthening public

institutions regarding gender inequality remain at the forefront of

democratic governance research (Jaquette, 2017). This nuanced

dilemma is firmly couched within the socio-economic

frameworks that drive much of the challenges against a

democratic society. Inglehart (2018) reminded us that this work

is more critical now than ever with “many marginally democratic

countries hav[ing] become increasingly authoritarian and

authoritarian, xenophobic populist movements hav[ing] grown

strong enough to threaten democracy’s long-term health in

several rich, established democracies including . . . the United

States” (p. 20).

With the acknowledgement that our current trajectory is off

course, women at the center of democracy work should not be

viewed as a radical adjustment in the 21st century. The

reactionary pendulum swings of principles and ideas might

accurately settle on a feminist ethic of care that accounts for the

9

advancements and achievements of women over time despite

prevailing norms that counter these ways of thinking, knowing

and behaving. The impact of women’s contributions continues to

be grossly undervalued in the political, professional and personal

realms. We will remain limited in our resources to counter attacks

on democracy until we are fully committed to educational

transformation that comprehensively explores the outcomes of

educational practices on and by women.

Exposing the Inequities in Educational Spaces

What are the issues? What are the needs? If balance across

fundamental social issues is critical to the publics’ perceived road

to success, we must first seek balance in our education leadership

and practices. While research suggests that educational

preparation, professional mentorship, response to job demands,

personal life status, and career trajectory for men and women is

similar, “men are still four times more likely than women to serve

in the most powerful positions in education, and both women and

men of color are still significantly underrepresented” (Robinson,

Shakeshaft, Grogan & Newcomb, 2017, np). Furthermore,

women make up an average of 75% of education professionals,

but only 30% of the leadership positions in education are held by

women (Morey, 2017).

Beyond issues concerning women in positions of educational

leadership, we also wrestle with significant problems of

disenfranchisement among women and girls in educational

institutions. We continue to find that adopting a one-dimensional

gender lens to study and address important work on inequality,

exclusion, and the pushing out of female students away from the

full scope of curricular programs of study and future economic

opportunities invariably limits our full understanding of the

possibilities of a new democratic education.

Moving beyond issues affecting specific populations, there are

broad challenges that impact all participants in education system

whose experiences might be enhanced by diversifying the

teaching profession, including how we address and respond to

issues of ability, class, economics, gender, health, race, and

sexual orientation. These dynamics of difference, which include

explorations of women’s ways of knowing, cultural diversity

10

among educators, the impact of economics on teachers, students,

schools and communities, and social insecurity among students

are essential aspects of concern when democracy is centralized in

the school curriculum.

We know exclusionary approaches to social topics that impact

a vastly diverse population leaves our society largely uninformed.

We need information, from both research and practice, that helps

us to understand all the various issues that serve to sustain the

continued oppression of women and girls. This must include the

myriad ways in which all these issues intersect and impact the

entire field of education. We are also in need of answers—stories

of successes and gains toward resisting this oppression by

channeling our work on activism in the vein of movements like

#YesAllWomen 1 which drive our efforts toward increased

intervention and change for women and girls.

The contributors to this volume interrogate these persistent

challenges of creating and sustaining democracy in education and

offer pieces to a puzzle that has yet to be solved. “Keeping

Women in Their Place? Post-Secondary Math Placement Testing

as a Barrier to Gender Equity in STEM” by Robin L. Angotti,

Karen Rosenberg and Rejoice Akapame examines the ongoing

underrepresentation of women in STEM fields such as

engineering and computer science. This disproportionate

representation of women based on their majority status at most

college campuses, and the campus under investigation in this

study, begs the questions: Why and how is this happening, as well

as, who is responsible? While women arrive at universities with

varied experiences—some having been discouraged from

pursuing STEM related content throughout their K-12 schooling

experiences—still some women arrive prepared to successfully

navigate the rigorous mathematics based content. However, a

common denominator that routinely excludes marginalized

students from reserved academic tracks is the gatekeeping

standardized test. The authors noted this single, high stakes

metric as the primary factor barring women from STEM majors

and certainly hindering their progression if they persistently

pursue despite requirements for remediation that lengthen time to

1 Social media campaign in which users share examples or stories of misogyny and violence against women

11

degree. Their observational research exposed cultural beliefs and

behaviors that further impacted women’s success in STEM fields

and provided specific avenues for policy changes and procedural

supports that might enhance the outcomes of women in this

economically rewarding career path.

Democracy for immigrant children is one of our most pressing

social issues in contemporary United States politics and Mary

DeBey and Shaheen Usmani explored the impact of democracy

on early childhood education in “Choosing to Teach Young

Children: Compensation and the Intersectionality of Gender, Race

and Immigration.” This ethnographic study carefully documented

the expansive contributions of early childhood teachers to one of

our most vulnerable populations and highlighted the gross

inequity that pervades salaries and compensations packages for

this profession that falls predominantly within a female domain.

Further exacerbating this injustice are the prevailing

characteristics of an early childhood educator which include

woman of color who may also hold immigrant status. This call

for equity of respect for women in this field also recognized the

importance of teaching and learning at this critical stage in

children’s lives, in particular for children who may receive their

primary instruction in early childhood education settings as

opposed to their homes. Most importantly, as credentialing

requirements increase at the expense of practicing early childhood

educators, salaries remain stagnant and further disenfranchise the

undervalued women who fill these vital roles in education.

Tricia Niesz offered direct instruction on how democracy

might be achieved in and through schooling efforts in “Connect,

Cultivate, Campaign: Toward a Social Movement Approach to

Educational Change” which relies heavily on the fundamental

contributions of activism. She highlighted the historical value in a

social movement approach to achieving significant educational

change and stressed the consequence of collective engagement to

foster change across the masses. The engagement of women who

represent the majority of educators in classrooms and parents

providing primary care to students in schools is offered as the

catalyst for effective network building and community

strengthening. These female alliances can be the source of

common visions for change that are a direct outcomes of shared

12

knowledge construction and stewardship of the creation of

socially just and democratic schools.

The creation of democratic spaces for individuals to flourish as

citizens was reviewed in “Feminist Epistemology and

Epistemological Pluralism: Implications for the Development of

Democratic Citizens by Aaron S. Zimmerman. His conceptual

essay maintained the position that schools are moral learning

communities that could prepare students for democratic

participation in society; however, the current construct of

education fails to embrace the epistemological pluralism that

might sustain the investigations and re-conceptualizations of

education as a space for diversity, equity and inclusivity. The

author argued for a theoretical framework of feminist

epistemology as the fundamentals of education to foster a

democratic state which acknowledges the experiences of

marginalized students. The ways in which the plethora of students

in the United States understand and exist in the world might be

more successfully supported and cultivated by educators using

what is recognized as a woman’s way of knowing. Dismantling

existing hierarchies of knowledge and privilege might be

enhanced in the public school setting through a more focused

implementation of feminist pedagogies in public school

classrooms and teacher education programs.

Keeping Democracy Alive

Through our research and our continued professional

development to member settings, the National Network for

Educational Renewal (NNER) strives to support best educational

practices and increase opportunities and paths to socially just

societies through education at the local, state, and national levels.

Narrow accountability that pervades current education policy

defies the deliberate communicative exchanges that characterize

the democratic process (Englund, 2016). Furthermore, our failure

to examine the fundamental cultural conventions that create

opposing values and beliefs and undermine democratic education

(Karaba, 2016) are responsible for the ongoing need to work

toward a socially just community via education. Hytten (2017)

noted that at no point in United States history have we fully

realized the ideals of democracy and that the tensions mired

13

among myriad uncomplimentary agendas demand continued

consideration of the goals toward a just society as economic and

health care gaps continue to expand and women’s rights are on

the forefront of attack.

The research that acknowledges Goodlad’s fundamental

beliefs articulated through the four pillars and 20 postulates

suggests we remain dedicated to the development of critical

communication skills that enable citizens to effectively

deconstruct arguments that threaten to erode democratic

principles (Pickett & Kleinsasser, 2016). We implore agents

working for democracy to continue to share insight and

information on the issues impacting democracy and to remain

invested in the health and welfare of the community at large by

utilizing and prioritizing the experiences, knowledge, and lives of

women and girls. This aligns with the unique diversity that

democracy demands in the fight for equality and against

hegemonic structures that push against progress (Rogers, 2016).

We do this by continuing to tell stories of students and schools

that help illuminate how diversity in our daily experience

improves the lives of all constituents involved and how women

provide a unique contribution to our collective story. We do this

by continuing to study and critique historical and current

educational contributions to the democratic state while

underscoring women’s social movements as a critical aspect of

the advancement of social justice in the United States and abroad.

We do this by continuing to take a multidisciplinary approach to

understanding the intersections of education with other

institutions such as economic, healthcare, political and other

social service organizations.

In keeping with the purpose of Education in a Democracy, this

volume of the journal continues to foster inquiry related to the

Agenda for Education in a Democracy (AED) and to support the

mission of the NNER which is to: 1) foster in the nation’s young

the skills, disposition, and knowledge necessary for effective

participation in a political democracy; 2) ensure that the young

have access to those understandings and skills required for

satisfying and responsible lives; 3) develop educators who nurture

the learning and well-being of every student; and 4) ensure

educators’ competence in and commitment to serving as stewards

14

of schools. We hope this volume supports the advancement of

the NNER goals and will inspire continued conversations and

commitment toward democracy.

References

Arnot, M. & Dillabough, J. (1999). Feminist politics and democratic

values in education. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(2), 159-189.

Collins, P.H. (1990). Black feminist thought. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Englund, T. (2016). On moral education through deliberative

communication. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(1), 58-76.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and

women's development. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Giroux, H.A. (2015). Democracy in crisis, the specter of

authoritarianism, and the future of higher education. Journal of Critical

Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 1(1), Article 7.

Available at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/vol1/iss1/7

Hooks, b. (1981). Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism.

Boston, MA: South End Press

Horsford, S.D. (2018). Making America’s schools great now:

Reclaiming democracy and activist leadership under Trump. Journal of

Educational Administration and History, 50(1), 3-11.

Hytten, K. (2017). Democracy and education in the United States.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. DOI:

10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.2.

Inglehart, R. (2018). The age of insecurity: Can democracy save itself.

Foreign Affairs, 97(3), 20-28.

Jaquette, J.S. (2017). Women at the top: Leadership, institutions and the

quality of democracy. In V. Montecinos (Ed.), Women presidents and

prime ministers in post-transition democracies., pp. 37-58. London,

UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Karaba, R. (2016). Challenging freedom: Neoliberalism and the erosion

of democratic education. Democracy and Education, 24(1), 1-10.

McCarthy, C. & Apple, M.W. (1988). Race, class and gender in

American educational research: Toward a nonsynchronous parallelist

position. In L. Weis (Ed.), Class, race and gender in American

education, pp. 9–39. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

15

Morey, C. (2017). Women Leaders in Education. Teaching Channel.

https://www.teachingchannel.org/blog/2017/02/17/women-leaders-in-

education

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral

education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Pickett, B. L., & Kleinsasser, A. M. (2016). Nurturing democratic

citizenship through human conversation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52(4),

182-185.

Robinson, K., Shakeshaft, C., Grogan, M., & Newcomb, W. S. (2017).

Necessary but not sufficient: The continuing inequality between men

and women in educational leadership, findings from the American

Association of School Administrators Mid-Decade Survey. Frontiers in

Education, 2(12), doi: 10.3389/feduc.2017.00012.

Rogers, R.H. (2016). Education, democracy, and decency: Which

curriculum ideology best addresses a child’s education for democracy?

In Carr P., Thomas, P., Porfilio, B., & Gorlewski, J. (Eds.), Democracy

and decency: What does education have to do with it?, pp. 133-147.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Spreen, C. A., Monaghan, C., & Hillary, A. (2018). From Transforming

Human Rights Education to Transformative Human Rights Education:

Context, Critique, and Change. In M. Zembylas & A. Keet (Eds.),

Critical human rights, citizenship, and democracy education:

Entanglements and regenerations, pp. 209-224. New York, NY:

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Weis, L. (1983). Schooling and cultural production: A comparison of

black and white lived culture. In M. Apple and L. Weis, (Eds.),

Ideology and practice in schooling, pp. 235-261. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.

— JOURNAL ARTICLES —

17

Keeping Women in Their Place? Post-Secondary Math Placement Testing as a

Barrier to Gender Equity in STEM

Robin L. Angotti Karen Rosenberg Rejoice Akapame University of Washington Bothell

Abstract Although women comprise the majority of students on college campuses,

they are severely underrepresented in disciplines such as engineering

and computer science. The journey into these STEM fields begins with

success in mathematics, which has an entry point of a placement test. When the results of placement tests are used as a single high-stakes

metric to determine where students will start in mathematics, how are

different groups of students affected? And is there a better way? One university used an observational study to answer these questions and

create change at the local level and, in doing so, brings a call to action.

Introduction

It is Spring 2019 at a mid-sized “progressive” university in the

United States that touts “inclusiveness” as a core value. The

instructor looks out at a sea of 50 faces in the junior level statistics

class which primarily serves the engineering department but also

has a few students from other STEM disciplines. Seven of those

faces belong to female students; six of those identify as White. The

afternoon section of the same class has a similar demographic. This

scene plays out on “progressive” college campuses around the

United States; schools whose mission statements pay homage to

diversity, equity, and inclusiveness. Yet when one studies the

demographics of STEM majors, the inclusive language in mission

statements rings hollow.

College students who want to major in STEM fields must first

demonstrate proficiency in mathematics by getting high grades in

prerequisite math classes. Those who do not make the required

entry score in “gateway” courses such as Calculus can repeat the

18

course, choose a different major, or decide to leave college.

Students marked as “underprepared”, a designation that comes as

a result of a placement test or scores on standardized college

entrance exams (SAT or ACT), are placed in developmental

mathematics courses. These “underprepared” students must pass

course(s) that may not count for credit in order to be “worthy” of

placement into the “gateway” course by which, if they pass with a

high enough metric, allows them to enter majors of their choice.

Failure to obtain a high enough score at any point from placement

test to gateway course bars students from entry into the subsequent

course.

Although it may seem that these metrics are fair and impartial

for people of any gender and ethnicity, the rhetoric of merit which

suggests that hard work and mathematical ability is all that is

necessary to be successful ignores the structures that provide

benefit to particular groups of people, (Rubel, 2017; Bowles &

Gintis, 2002; McIntosh, 1988). This argument also denies that lack

of success by these metrics could arise from systemic bias rather

than a lack of individual ability or effort (Milner, 2012). Most

universities utilize merit-based placement testing while at the same

time are stymied by the gap of female and underrepresented

minority (URM) students in STEM fields which persists regardless

of all the good-intentioned programs to “close” this gap. This “gap

gazing” between male and female students and between White and

URM fails to address the role of gender and racial bias within

STEM disciplines. This phenomenon is evident in placement

testing for mathematics.

Placement testing, either with a mandated entry exam or by

interpreting standardized test scores such as the ACT or SAT, serve

as the first filter of who gets to participate in upper level

mathematics, and thus STEM fields, with a single high-stakes

metric. However, most standardized tests have shown limited

efficacy for accurately placing students (Scott-Clayton, Crosta &

Belfield, 2014) as well as significant bias against female students

(Mattern, Sanches, & Ndum, 2017). Therefore, placement testing,

which has shown to be uncorrelated to successful completion of

collegiate math courses and biased against women, is used as the

sole metric for determining where students begin their mathematics

journey at most universities throughout the U.S. This is even true

19

at our university, where the Goodlad Center for Educational

Renewal is based.

John Goodlad defined education in a democratic society as a

fundamental right for all people (Goodlad, 1997). The Goodlad

Center for Educational Renewal was “founded on the belief that

ongoing local renewal is the key to good schools” (University of

Washington Bothell, n.d, Goodlad Institute for Educational

Renewal: para. 3). Studies have also shown that regular use of

local data to guide curricular and programmatic decisions is one of

the keys to successful university mathematics programs (Bressoud

& Rasmussen, 2015). Thus, universities and colleges, including

ours, must also be engaging in a process of renewal and continually

asking, “How can we do better for all students?” and “Do we know

who we are, and are we in line with who we project ourselves to

be?” We need to be doing more than “gap gazing” in mathematics

placement and have a serious conversation about the systemic

factors that contribute to that gap. The research featured in this

paper is an attempt to do just that. We turned the lens on ourselves

in what has become for us a call for action and a change of practices

in placement testing to allow more people through the “gate” with

a particular focus on women from both White and racialized

identities. Our research suggests that rather than serving as an

objective tool for assigning math classes, math placement tests

perpetuate the conditions that exclude women and URM from

STEM majors.

Theoretical Framework

We use Gutierrez’s theoretical framework on equity to more

deeply understand the role the math placement test may have in

either ameliorating or perpetuating inequitable access to STEM

majors on our campus. We share the belief that “equity is

ultimately about the distribution of power--power in the classroom,

power in future schooling, power in one’s everyday life and power

in a global society” (Gutierrez, 2009, p. 5). Gutierrez

conceptualizes her equity framework in terms of four dimensions

along two axes. The first axis, called the dominant axis, has access

on one end and achievement on the other, often but not always,

operating in tension with one another. To achieve equity, access to

20

resources and support is a necessity. However, access in and of

itself does not translate into success. It is a necessary, but not

sufficient condition. Attention to achievement--setting the

conditions necessary for students to succeed within and beyond the

university context--is a crucial component of Gutierrez’s equity

framework.

Gutierrez’s second axis, termed the critical axis, places power

on one end and identity on the other. Power for Gutierrez, as

intimated in the quote above, is most usefully conceptualized

broadly. Power encompasses both material and discursive

resources and attention to how resources are distributed is key in

this theoretical framework. Finally, identity focuses on the

interplay between social markers such as race, gender, ethnicity

and how these markers -- and the histories that attach to them --

“show up” and are (de)valued in contexts such as classrooms.

Using Gutierrez’s equity framework, we sought to examine the

role that placement tests played on intersectional gender equity in

STEM. That is, were all groups of students provided the same level

of access to STEM fields or was the placement test a barrier for

some? In order to answer this question, we first examined prior

research, considered the context and demographics of the

university, used statistical analysis to examine the effect the

placement test had on subgroups of students, and with these results,

considered a path forward.

Literature Review

High-stakes testing has a long history in the U.S. educational

system which has masked underlying structures of racial and

gender inequality within a rhetoric of meritocracy (Au, 2016).

From the formation of the College Entrance Exam Board in 1900

to current tests such as the SAT, SAT II, PSAT, ACT, and AP

exams, these tools have been regarded as objective measures of a

student’s capacity for college-level work (U.S. Congress, 1992)

and used to separate those who would go on to obtain a college

degree from those who were deemed not “college-ready”. In fact,

U.S. students are barraged with “gatekeeper” testing throughout

their schooling. In K-12 education, students must make “adequate

yearly progress” throughout elementary and secondary education

21

in order to progress to graduation. The presumption of objectivity

of all of these tests gives rise to the idea that it is solely on the basis

of merit that an individual can successfully proceed through these

“gateways” without considering other factors which may affect

students’ ability to perform on a test. This ideology of meritocracy

perpetuates rationalization of socio-economic, racial, and gender

inequities (Au, 2013) from K-12 education through college

admissions.

For most students, admission to college comes with one more

high-stakes testing hurdle, placement testing for mathematics and

writing. Previous research has shown that these tests typically have

little or no correlation or predictive power in measuring student

success (Scott-Clayton, 2012; Belfield & Crosta, 2012) and often

underestimate students’ abilities (Bahr et al, 2019). Approximately

30% of students entering 4-year institutions in the United States

will be enrolled in at least one developmental math class and this

percentage is significantly higher among Latinx, African-

American, first-generation, and low-income students (Jimenez et

al, 2016). Completion of remediation in mathematics has been

identified as the single largest barrier for increasing graduation

rates (Attewell et al, 2006; Complete College America, 2012).

Since there is a positive correlation between taking developmental

courses and students’ time to degree completion, the more

developmental courses a student must take, the greater their time

to completing their degree which reduces the potential for

graduation.

As many as 60-70% of students who have to take at least one

developmental class are less likely to complete college than those

who start in a gateway course such as calculus in their first year

(Armstrong & Zaback, 2014; Barry & Dannenberg, 2016). At least

25% of students placed in developmental courses could have made

a B or better in a college level course with no remediation (Scott-

Clayton & Rodriguez, 2012). A significant amount of effort has

been put into treatment of “underprepared” students yet very little

attention has been given to the consequences of labelling students

as “underprepared” in the first place.

As we considered the demographics of our own campus in light

of this previous research, we began to contemplate how the policies

we had in place regarding placement testing were affecting access,

22

one of the dominant dimensions in Gutierrez’s equity framework.

Was placement testing, found in previous research to be

uncorrelated from student success, disproportionately negatively

affecting women and students of color? If so, this would require

them to take additional developmental courses at a significant

economic cost in addition to extra time and effort while potentially

keeping them from access to STEM majors which tend to lead to

higher paying jobs. It would also decrease their probability of

graduating from college, which is at the achievement end of the

dominant axis of the equity framework while perpetuating the

existing gender, racial and classist structures in current operation

in the U.S.

Campus Context

A primarily undergraduate-serving institution, the University of

Washington Bothell (UWB) is part of the larger, public, tri-campus

University of Washington in the northwestern United States.

Primarily a commuter campus with a student population of

approximately 6,000, the university has a stated commitment to

underserved students: of the students who enter in their first year

of college, 61% are classified as coming from “diverse racial and

ethnic backgrounds” and approximately 50% of incoming

freshmen and 39% of transfer students are first in their families to

seek a 4-year university degree with approximately equal numbers

of male and female students. The university mission statement

affirms the intention to “[b]uild an inclusive and supportive

community of learning and incorporate multicultural content and

diverse perspectives on ethnic and racial groups, gender, sexual

orientation, social class, and special needs.” (University of

Washington Bothell, 2002, Mission & Vision: para. 1).

The university has invested heavily in STEM education and

actively cultivates partnerships with technology employers located

just a few miles from campus. Our School of STEM has funded

diversity education for faculty and signaled support for diversity-

related work such as the Dean’s request that all faculty read

Whistling Vivaldi (Steele, 2010) and Presumed Incompetant

(Gutierrez et al, 2012). As part of its commitment to diversity and

in response to student protest and advocacy, during the 2017-2018

academic year, the university created a Student Diversity Center,

23

hired an interim Dean of Diversity, and engaged in a campus-wide

process where each school was required to craft its own diversity

statement.

A key component of operationalizing the campus’ STEM

education equity agenda is the university’s Quantitative Skills

Center (QSC). Staffed by a team of 30 peer tutors, the QSC is a

drop-in center open over 50 hours a week during the academic

year. Informed by growth mindset pedagogies (Dweck, 2008),

tutors help students see themselves as quantitatively competent as

they increase their quantitative reasoning skills. The QSC is a

popular destination for students: it has outgrown its space twice in

the past decade and provides over 12,000 tutoring sessions a year.

After noticing a significantly larger number of male students

utilizing the QSC, Angotti and Rosenburg conducted research to

determine if the QSC was being utilized equitably by all groups of

students. This research showed that, proportionally, there was

actually a higher percentage of women from most courses utilizing

the services at the QSC especially from developmental courses

(Angotti & Rosenburg, 2018). In the analysis of gender and

intersectionality of gender and ethnicity, this research also revealed

that the QSC was providing equality of service when evaluated

solely on use of services by females in developmental and gateway

mathematics courses. The analysis revealed that women and

underrepresented women (i.e., women from minoritized groups)

used the QSC more than their non-underrepresented counterparts

in developmental math courses. However, the reason that there

appeared to be such a high number of males was that there was an

overwhelmingly higher proportion of males in mathematics

courses in general.

This previous research study revealed a questionable pattern in

gender breakdowns in undergraduate mathematics courses (Figure

1). To determine if the gender proportionality of students whose

use of the QSC was equivalent to that of the gender makeup in

mathematics courses, researchers first had to determine the

proportionality of gender breakdown in those mathematics courses.

Since we focused on service courses (courses that are required by

multiple majors) as well as developmental mathematics courses,

we looked at College Algebra; Precalculus I and II’ and the three-

quarter Calculus sequence. Although the Calculus sequence shows

24

the typical pattern of more males than females and higher levels of

White and Asian students who are not underrepresented in STEM,

we found it more problematic that the developmental courses

showed opposite trends. Twenty years of research shows no

difference between males and females as they leave secondary

school mathematics (Lindberg, Hyde, Peterson, & Linn, 2010), we

therefore questioned why these patterns emerged at a university

with an almost equal number of male and female students. One

possible explanation was placement testing. Was our current

placement test biased against women? If so, this would result in a

higher proportion of females being required to take as many as two

courses of developmental mathematics to even get to the same

level as their male counterparts. This could significantly affect

their chances of college completion as well as their ability to major

in STEM fields. This is the question we were determined to

answer.

Figure 1: Total enrollment in undergraduate "service" courses

(2014-2017) by gender

Depending on the outcome of that answer, we would then have

to ask a deeper question: what do we do about it? How do we

25

propose change so that we can help students who may be missing

important prior knowledge yet not hold back students who may be

prepared but just not test well? How do we sway colleagues who

adamantly support placement testing? Asked how to create change

when faced with serious educational issues, Goodlad once said

that, after gathering relevant information, ask the question “What

is a better way?” and then ground the conversation in concrete,

defensible language. This is followed by making decisions,

formulating action and measuring the results of those actions

(Goldberg, 1995).

Research Methods

After noticing a pattern in the enrollment of women in

developmental mathematics, researchers examined the

corresponding placement test data to see if a similar pattern was

replicated in placement test data. The placement test used at the

university is managed by the Office of Educational Assessment

and is part of a testing agreement which is a cooperative program

of the state’s public colleges and universities. The test takes

approximately an hour and students may choose either the General

Math Placement Test which is “directed toward students who have

less than three or four years of high school math and who will be

entering pre-calculus or general college-level math classes” or the

Advanced Math Placement Test for “students who have taken at

least three or four years of high school math and who wish to enroll

in Calculus” (University of Washington Bothell, n.d, Math

Placement: Test Format section, para. 3). The test costs $25 per

administration. Students who take the advanced test and score too

low must go back and take the general placement test. Transfer

students with college credit for algebra or calculus, or entering

students with a Calculus Advanced Placement (AP) score of 2 or

higher, or an International Baccalaureate (IB) Mathematics

(Higher Level) score of 5 or higher do not have to take a placement

test. Thus, the test is only given to entering students without prior

credit in mathematics at the college level or its equivalent.

Placement test data were provided to the researchers by the

Office of Institutional Research and contained data for the 3-year

period, 2014-2017, for which the math course data were collected.

26

The placement test data were combined with student background

data which included the math courses in which the student

enrolled, gender, ethnicity, and course scores. The data were

analyzed using one-sided alternative, Z-tests for the difference in

the proportions (Ha: proportion of females > proportion of males)

placed in developmental mathematics courses and a one-sided

alternative, Z-test for the difference in the proportions (Ha:

proportion of males > proportion of females) placed in higher level

courses. The assumption was that, if there is no difference in math

ability between males and females upon high school graduation

(Lindberg, Hyde, Peterson, & Linn, 2010) and equal numbers of

males and females entering the university, the proportion of

students being placed in developmental mathematics courses

should be equal. A similar hypothesis also tested the

intersectionality of gender and ethnicity.

As a quantitative measure of the magnitude of the difference

between groups, an odds ratio was used to measure effect size

(Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). This is appropriate because of the binary

nature of the data and comparison between each of the groups.

Odds ratios will quantify how much more likely a student from one

subgroup is to be placed in a certain course over a comparison

group.

Student ethnicity was divided into two groups: a group whose

ethnicity is historically underrepresented in STEM fields such as

Black, Latinx, Native-American, etc. and a second group of Asian

and White students who are historically not underrepresented in

STEM. Our institutional data does not disaggregate different Asian

groups, some of which are underrepresented in STEM.

Combining Asian and White students in this research was done

to avoid structurally marginalizing underrepresented students of

color. That is, we are not saying that underrepresented students

achieve lower than Asian or White students because of lack of

effort or ability, we are saying just the opposite. In fact, the very

idea of meritocracy produces a “racial hierarchy” in STEM

education which benefits White Americans by creating obstacles

to achievement for underrepresented Black, Latinx, and Native

Americans, and legitimizes the notion of White superiority. On the

other hand, if we combined Asians with other students of color, the

resulting analysis would render invisible the inequities for

27

underrepresented groups such as Black, Latinx and Native

American and would make it appear that our university had no

problems of placement test bias (Chen & Buell, 2018).

We also have no intention of trivializing the experiences of

Asian-Americans who have been racialized to justify meritocracy

as an excuse to describe the perceived lack of performance of other

ethnic groups and thus promote White supremacy or who have also

been seen as a threat because of their perceived abilities in math.

We chose to group White and Asian students together solely

because they are not underrepresented in STEM on our campus and

we wanted this research to highlight the inequities for students who

are underrepresented.

Results

Once the data were prepared and cleaned, the placement test data

were aligned with institutional metrics of gender and

intersectionality of ethnicity and gender. The data were then

visualized and analyzed using the methods described above and

summarized. Because of significant differences in standard

preparedness for mathematics, international students were

removed from the data. Due to low numbers, transgender students

were also removed to protect anonymity, thus only cisgender

students were used in this study.

Significance of Gender on Placement Test Outcomes

With the remaining data, in the three years of this study, there were

equal numbers of male and female students who took the general

placement test (Table 1) while over double the number of males

than females took the advanced test (Table 2). This is consistent

with research on lower self-efficacy by females than males which

correlates to higher anxiety (Sainz & Eccles, 2012; Pajares, 2005),

thus they would opt for the less rigorous test. Of the students taking

the general test, it was hypothesized that females were placed into

the two lower, developmental courses (college algebra and

precalculus I) at higher rates than males, whereas males were

placed into precalculus II at higher rates than females. Although

all three tests were significant at a 0.05 level, they were more

practically significant for the lowest and the highest placement

28

possibilities for the general test. Females had more than 2:1 odds

of being placed in the lowest developmental class, whereas their

male counterparts had over 2:1 odds of being placed in the highest

class predicted by the general placement test (Table 1).

For the advanced test, the results were similar. The odds of a

female being placed into the lower of the two classes predicted by

the advanced placement testing instrument were over twice that of

a male. Thus, the odds of a male being placed in a higher level class

(Calculus I) is over twice as high as the odds for a female (Table

2). Thus, both the general and the advanced test give a significant

advantage to males to be placed higher in mathematics.

Table 1

Table 2

Significance of Intersectionality of Gender and Ethnicity on

Placement Test Outcomes

Treating gender and ethnicity as discrete categories invisibilizes

the experiences of women of color. Heeding the call initially

brought forth by Black feminists (Crenshaw, 2016; Hull & Smith,

1982), we extended the quantitative analysis to explore the

intersection of gender and ethnicity. As with gender and ethnicity

separately, the odds for both underrepresented males and females

29

of being placed in the lowest class are over two times greater than

the odds for their respective male and female majoritarian

counterparts (Table 3). The odds are 4.375 times more likely that

an underrepresented female will be placed into the lowest level of

developmental mathematics than a White or Asian male student.

That scenario is reversed when examining the odds for the upper

limit of the general test prediction of Precalculus II. For this

course, non-underrepresented male and female students are

significantly more likely to be placed in this highest course over

their respective underrepresented counterparts. A non-

underrepresented male’s odds of being placed in Precalculus II are

4.5 times greater than an underrepresented female’s odds. These

statistics point to systemic issues and are very unlikely due to

random chance.

One area where these patterns change is in the data on

intersectionality with the advanced placement test (Table 4). In

this test, female students from both underrepresented and non-

underrepresented groups are approximately equal in their

placement in the lower course predicted by the advanced test

(Precalculus II). However, there are still significant differences in

the two groups of male students. Thus, there are significant

differences between White and Asian male students vs. all other

groups. As noted, there is a large drop in the number of females of

both groups who take the advanced test. This drop is consistent

with previously noted research on gender in mathematics.

Table 3

30

Table 4

Considerations

Note that this study was not experimental but observational. There

are many variables involved in performance on standardized tests

as well as success in subsequent coursework that cannot be

explained solely by the outcome of a test. This study in no way

implies that the particular assessment used here is faulty. We are

suggesting that using a single high stakes metric as the authority

on placing students in mathematics is a practice that we should

consider changing if we ever hope to diversify STEM.

Discussion

The underrepresentation of women in certain STEM fields such as

engineering and computer science is undeniable. Since half of the

population are women, these critical fields are not capturing some

of the brightest talent in the world today, talent that could be used

to find solutions to the complex problems facing humanity. The

road to these disciplines requires passage through higher level

mathematics, not just in K-12, but also in higher education. To gain

access, students who did not take previous college credit courses

such as AP, IB or junior college must pass through the gate of

placement testing. Based on the ideas of meritocracy, it would

seem that mathematics is the gatekeeper, but it is not. The current

system that determines placement based on a single, high-stakes

metric, which is shown to be uncorrelated to success and biased

towards women, is more likely the actual gatekeeper.

31

This system enacts a higher price for passage through the gate

of higher level mathematics for women and underrepresented

groups. Women, who start two courses behind in developmental

mathematics courses must pay a much higher price both financially

with two extra courses but also in added time, energy, and

resources in order to be able to pursue high demand, high paying

fields such as engineering and computer science. If they achieve

the level of mathematics they need to gain entrance, then they have

a host of other obstacles to deal with in the culture of those fields.

If this were just a problem at one university, the solution to the

problem would be simple, but it is not. It is a problem in

universities around the U.S. and the world. At our university, once

we identified the problem, our next step was, as Goodlad

suggested, to have a serious educational conversation. A

conversation was started between representatives from

mathematics from each of the campuses in our system. One

suggestion was to eliminate the placement test completely and

allow students to place into mathematics with Directed Self-

Placement (DSP), a process which our university has already

adopted for its first-year composition classes.

“Is There a Better Way?”

In DSP for the composition courses, students themselves choose

which level writing course they feel is most appropriate for them.

The role of the institution is twofold: 1) to inform students about

the goals and expectations of the different course options, and 2)

to provide tools for students to assess their level of writing

competency. Students generally learn about different course

options through written materials and discussions with academic

advisors. Common tools for students to assess their writing

competency include self-guided assessments (often offered

online), and suggestions for soliciting feedback from high school

teachers and others with knowledge of the students’ writing

abilities. Crucially, students can exercise more agency and grow as

learners through the placement process. Proponents of DSP for

writing placement argue that it empowers students to participate in

their education, reduces stigma for students enrolled in lower level

courses, and is effective in placing students (Chernekoff, 2003;

Royer & Gilles 2003). Empirical research shows generally positive

32

results with DSP (Chernekoff, 2003; Frus 2003; and Royer &

Gilles 2003), though there are also studies showing that DSP is not

an effective placement mechanism (Gere, Aull, Green, & Porter,

2010). Taken together, the research suggests that DSP is a

promising alternative to placement testing when skillfully tailored

to the local context. A similar approach could be taken to

placement in mathematics.

At our university, we discussed eliminating the initial two

developmental courses (College Algebra and Precalculus I) which

would make the floor course for all students Precalculus II. In

order to address the anxiety of females in mathematics, we

discussed creating an optional co-requisite course which would

provide “just-in-time” support on prerequisite algebra concepts

that would be used at that particular time in the Precalculus II

course. We would also provide drop in “just-in-time” tutoring at

the QSC by aligning the concepts being taught in the Precalculus

II classroom with tutoring. In addition, we have formed a diversity

action team within our Quantitative Skills Center (QSC) to review

services and service delivery through a diversity, equity, and

inclusion lens. Comprised of students and staff, the diversity action

team aims to create a more “identity conscious” (Pendakur, 2016)

center that supports women and underrepresented minorities

(URM) as they progress through their STEM courses. In an

“identity conscious” frame, student success programming is

tailored to best meet the needs of different groups of students.

Changing Placement, Changing Culture

Placement is not the end of a student’s mathematics journey nor

the ultimate answer to the question, “Is there a better way?”. In

order for women and URM students to progress through

mathematics and into upper level STEM courses, we need to have

a conversation regarding what makes an effective mathematics

program, and locally at our university we need to question what we

are doing to achieve such a program. Going back to Gutierrez’s

(2009) equity framework with its dual axes, in the plan discussed

above, we have addressed the Dominant Axis consisting of Access

and Achievement. Our plan provides Access for all students to

participate in mathematics (removing the placement test) and

Achievement by providing resources (optional co-requisite “just-

33

in-time” help) in order to provide tangible results such as the

‘benchmark” grade to the subsequent course or program entry.

What we have not considered is the Critical Axis of Identity and

Power.

In terms of Power, how are we helping students use

mathematics to achieve personal goals (solving problems in their

local communities, for example)? Having agency in the world

around us is the fundamental principle of power. We must consider

how we are or are not fostering agency in our students through their

knowledge of mathematics. The power dimension is the heart of

social transformation.

The other end of the Critical Axis is Identity. Identity is both

past history (the history of culture and ancestry in mathematics, i.e.

the Hindu-Arabic numeral system) but also of the way students are

racialized, gendered, and classed in a global society (Gutierrez,

2009). For example, in mathematics, do students have the

opportunity to explore why particular perspectives are valued and

how to find a middle ground between their lived perspectives and

the ideas of the dominant mathematics culture? This type of

exploration would make mathematics meaningful for ALL

students, not just women or underrepresented minorities. It is the

type of exploration that allows students to be able to answer the

question, “When are we ever going to use this?”.

John Goodlad advocated for candid, authentic discussion about

educational issues. His influence on us brings us to this call for

action among our higher education counterparts. Just as we have

begun to accept that the GRE is not a good metric for whether

students will be successful in graduate studies, we need to accept

that placement testing and standardized testing are not indicative

of students’ abilities in mathematics. We need to have frank

discussions on the usefulness of these tools. We need to ask the

question which Goodlad charged us to ask, “Is there a better way?”

and we need to be open to the answer to that question.

References

Angotti, R.L., & Rosenberg, K.E. (2018). Strategic collaboration for

richer assessment: Educational data mining to improve learning centers.

The Learning Assistance Review, 23(2), 115-132.

34

Armstrong, J. & Zaback, K. (2014). College completion rates and

remedial education outcomes for institutions in Appalachian states.

Report Prepared for the Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved

from: https://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/

CollegeCompletionRatesandRemedialOutcomesforAppalachianStates.p

df.

Attewell, P. A., Lavin, D. E., Thurston. D., & Levey, T. (2006). New

evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education,

77(5), 886-924.

Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a

racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Education Policy, 30(1),

39-62.

Au, W. (2013). Hiding behind high-stakes testing: Meritocracy,

objectivity and inequality in U.S. education. The International

Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 7-19.

Bahr, P. R., Fagioli, L. P., Hetts, J., Hayward, C., Willett, T., Lamoree,

D., Newell, M, Sorey, K., & Baker, R. B. (2019). Improving placement

accuracy in California’s community colleges using multiple measures

of high school achievement. Community College Review, 47(2), 178–

211. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119840705

Barry, M., & Dannenberg, M. (2016). Out of pocket: the high cost of

inadequate high schools and high school student achievement on

college affordability, Education Reform Now, [Washington]. Retrieved

from: https://www.insidehighered.com/ sites/default/server_files/files/

dReformNow%20O-O-P%20Embargoed%20Final.pdf

Belfield, C., & Crosta, P. (2012). Predicting success in college: The

importance of placement tests and high school transcripts (CCRC

Working Paper No. 42). New York, NY: Community College Research

Center. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/ED529827.pdf

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). The inheritance of inequality. Journal

of Economic Perspectives. 16(3), 3-30.

Bressoud, D., & Rasmussen, C. (2015). Seven characteristics of

successful calculus programs. Notices of the AMS, 42(2), 144-146.

Chen, G.A. & Buell, J. Y. (2018). Of models and myths: Asian

(Americans) in STEM and the neoliberal racial project. Race Ethnicity

and Education, 21(5), 607-625.

35

Chernekoff, J. (2003). Introducing directed self-placement to Kutztown

University. Directed Self-Placement: Principles and Practices, 127-

147.

Complete College America. (2012). Remediation. Higher education

bridge to nowhere. Retrieved from: https://www. insidehighered.com/

ites/default/server_files/files/CA%20Remediation%20ES%20FINAL.p

df

Crenshaw, K. (2016). On intersectionality: Essential writings. New

York, NY: New Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New

York, NY: Random House Digital, Inc.

Gere, A. R., Aull, L., Green, T., & Porter, A. (2010). Assessing the

validity of directed self-placement at a large university. Assessing

Writing, 15(3), 154-176.

Goldberg, M.F. (1995). A portrait of John Goodlad. Educational

Leadership, 52(6), 82-85.

Goodlad, J.L. (1997). In praise of education. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Gutierrez, M. G., Niemann, Y. F., Gonzalez, C. G., & Harris, A. P.

(2012). Presumed incompetent: The intersections of race and class for

women in academia. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Gutiérrez, R. (2007). Context matters: Equity, success, and the future of

mathematics education. In T. Lamberg & L. R. Wiest (Eds.),

Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the North American Chapter

of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics

Education (pp. 1–18). Stateline (Lake Tahoe), NV: University of

Nevada, Reno.

Gutierrez, R. (2009). Framing equity: Helping students “play the

game” and “change the game.” Teaching for Excellence and Equity in

Mathematics, 1(1), 4-8. Retrieved from: https://www.todos-math.org/

assets/documents/TEEMv1n1excerpt.pdf

Jimenez, L., Sargrad, S., Morales, J., & Thompson, S. (2016). Remedial

education: The cost of catching up. Washington, DC: The Center for

American Progress. Retrieved from: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/

wp-content/uploads/2016/09/12082503/ CostOfCatchingUp-report.pdf

36

Hull, A., Bell-Scott, P., & Smith, B. (1982). All the women are White,

all the Blacks are men, but some of us are brave: Black women’s

studies. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.

Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New

trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123-1135.

Mattern, K., Sanches, E., & Ndum, E. (2017). Why do achievement

measures underpredict female academic performance? Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(1) 47-57.

McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible

knapsack, Retrieved from: https://www.racialequitytools.org/

resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf

Milner, H. R. (2012). Rethinking achievement gap talk in urban

education. Urban Education, 48(1), 3-8.

Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy

beliefs. In A. Gallagher & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Mind Gap: Gender

Differences in Mathematics (pp. 294-315). Boston, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

Pendakur, V. (2016). Closing the opportunity gap: Identity-conscious

strategies for retention and student success (First ed.). Sterling, VA:

Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Royer, D., & Gilles, R. (2003). Directed self-placement: Principles and

practices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Rubel, L. (2017). Equity-directed instructional practices: Beyond the

dominant perspective. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 10(2),

66-105.

Sáinz, M., & Eccles, J. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math

ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486-499.

Scott-Clayton, J. (2012). Do high stakes placement exams predict

college success? (CCRC Working Paper No. 41). New York, NY:

Community College Research Center. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.

ed.gov/fulltext/ED529866.pdf

Scott-Clayton, J., & Rodriguez, O. (2012). Development,

discouragement, or diversion? New evidence on the effects of college

remediation. NBER Working Paper 18328. Retrieved from:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w18328

37

Scott-Clayton, J., Crosta, P.M., & Belfield, C. R. (2014). Improving the

targeting of treatment: Evidence from college remediation. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 371-393.

Steele, C. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi and other clues to how stereotypes

affect us. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Sullivan, G.M. & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size - or why the p-

value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3),

279–282.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Testing in American

Schools: Asking the Right Questions, OTA-SET-519 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992). Retrieved from:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/ DATA/1992/9236.PDF

University of Washington Bothell. (n.d.). Fast facts 2018-2019.

Retrieved June 11, 2019. https://www.uwb.edu/about/facts/

fastfacts2018

University of Washington Bothell. (2002). Vision and core values.

Retrieved May 25, 2018. https://www.uwb.edu/about/ vision

University of Washington Bothell. (n.d.). Goodlad Institute for

Educational Renewal. Retrieved June 11, 2019. https://www.uwb.edu/

research/centers/goodladinstitute

University of Washington Bothell. (n.d.). Math Placement Test.

Retrieved June 11, 2019. https://www.uwb.edu/premajor/advising/

mathplacement

38

Choosing to Teach

Young Children: Compensation and the Intersectionality of

Gender, Race and Immigration

Mary DeBey, Brooklyn College Shaheen Usmani, City University of New York

Abstract At this time of rapid expansion of early childhood educational initiatives

throughout the United States, it is imperative that we address the inequity of early childhood teacher’s salaries, schedules and benefits within the

P-12 educational system. This inequality primarily affects women

teachers who make up 97% of preschool teachers, many of whom are

immigrants and teachers of color. To achieve equity, it is important forthe larger educational community to advocate equipped with a deeper

understanding of the early childhood education profession and the work

that early childhood teachers do.

It is not unusual to have highly qualified women, many of whom are immigrants and teachers of color, teaching in daycares, Head Starts and other community based organizations (CBOs) with inequitable wages, schedules and benefits when compared to teachers in P through 12 public schools. It is remarkable that addressing this inequity has not been one of urgency among educators and decision makers concerned with equity and social justice. The Center for the Study of Child Care Employment (2018) stated, “The early care and education (ECE) systemin the United States is built upon a foundation of structural inequality based on gender, class, and racial inequities that are woven throughout American institu-tions and culture” (para. 1). The National Association for the Education of Young Children along with other early childhood organizations have addressed this inequity for decades with some successes and many disappointments. This article calls for the larger educational community to address the inequity and suggests that a deeper understanding

39

of the profession and the unique work of early childhood

teachers to assist in tackling this longstanding concern. Although

early childhood education includes birth through grade 2, early

childhood teachers in this article refers to those teaching within

infant, toddler, and three and four-year-old classrooms.

A Glimpse of High Quality Early Childhood Education in

Practice

To humanize the inequality, we have chosen to describe a

classroom of excellence and the teachers within it, Ms. Erica and

Ms. Nicola. Located in a high needs area of East New York

Brooklyn, this Head Start classroom is an ideal setting for four-

year-old children to engage in effective teaching and learning

experiences. It is more than good care or preparation for

elementary school success; it is an example of educating the hand,

the heart and the mind of the child. The room is light, artful and

vibrant. The children spend hours each day constructing

knowledge as they choose from developmentally appropriate

materials and activities such as building with blocks, cooking in

the dramatic play area, working on projects or painting. The

teachers carefully observe and record the children’s play, paying

careful attention to how the environment meets the needs of each

child as well as for whole group learning to work in tandem.

During choice time as well as teacher directed activities, thought is

given to the children’s development across the domains; social,

physical, language and cognitive. All of the space, floor to ceiling,

is filled with sound and movement; teachers and children explore

their bodies on the floor as well as reaching high into the air. Deep

relationships are evident, among the children, the children and

adults, and the children with materials in the room. Parents are

involved within the classroom with Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola

respectfully talking with parents about supporting their child’s

development including health and wellness. It is inspiring to

observe Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola orchestrate the day-- guiding

children, having conversations with parents and moving through

crises. It is extraordinarily intricate as it requires the constant

physical and intellectual engagement of the teachers. Due to the

excellence of their work, during a recent observation by a

Department of Education (DOE) instructional coach assigned to

40

UPKs, Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola were encouraged to apply for

open DOE coaching positions. Although flattered, they declined

since it would mean leaving the classroom, and they feel their lives

are “most impactful” working with young children. They chose

this work and “love teaching young children”.

Observing Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola in the educational setting

is to experience professional distinction at the early childhood

level. They are totally present; breathing in and out, observing,

knowing when to assist and when to wait, allowing for spontaneity

and exactness, encouraging concentration and laughter, and

radiating joy. To excel as teachers of young children, they show

profound understanding of child development, creating

environments and working with families. Both teachers came to

early childhood education having years of teaching experience in

elementary and high school in their home countries, St. Vincent

and the Grenadines. As other immigrants educators have done,

Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicole relied on guidance from those who came

earlier and were told about openings at the Head Start where they

now teach. Along with teaching, both obtained a master’s degree

in early childhood education at a City University of New York

college.

When New York City began providing Universal Pre-

Kindergarten (UPK) for all four-year-old children in 2015, the new

classrooms were located in public schools or in community-based

organizations (CBOs) including daycares, Head Starts and private

preschools. Ms. Erica was moved to the new UPK classroom at

the Head Start from a non-UPK classroom thus receiving higher

pay with shorter hours and no classroom time during summer. To

finish supervised student teaching requirements for her master’s

degree, Ms. Nicola left her classroom as a head teacher at the center

and joined Ms. Erica as her assistant. The additional pay for UPK

teachers and assistants in CBOs does not result in equity with

public school teachers in the City, although the same curriculum

and assessments are used and the teachers are required to have the

same New York state teacher certification. For Ms. Nicola, the

UPK assistant teacher salary was higher than that of a lead teacher

in a non-UPK classroom.

41

Defining the Inequity

This section defines the inequity between early childhood

educators and those who teach older students. It then examines the

intersectionality of gender, race and immigration regarding the

compensation.

The Inequity as Measured by Social Status

It is helpful to view the inequity through an analysis of the social

status of early childhood teachers. Although the standard measures

of socioeconomic status (SES), education, salary and status of

occupation have been refined in fields such as health to more

precisely define inequality, they remain the measures most used

(American Psychological Association, n.d.) and are helpful for this

study. There is little difference between the amount of education

and certification required to teach at different age levels. All levels

require a bachelor’s or master’s degree; however, the content

differs. Specifically, early childhood educators are steeped in

development across all domains, developmental assessment,

environmental design for the active engagement of young children

and collaboration with families. Elementary education teachers are

steeped in how to effectively provide a rich curriculum and how to

measure achievement across the disciplines, while secondary

education teachers most often are required to have a major or minor

in a discipline and learn teaching pedagogy and assessment within

a school of education. All programs generally require a course in

the foundations of the field and the development of the

child/student being taught, including those with disabilities.

Across the three social status measures the inequity is most

evident in salaries and benefits. Early childhood teachers fall far

below those who teach elementary and secondary students with

similar degrees and experiences. The median annual wage as of

May 2018 for teachers according to the US Bureau of Labor

Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbooks was $29,780 for

preschool teachers (Preschool Teachers, 2019), $57,980 for

elementary teachers (Kindergarten and Elementary Teachers,

2019) and $60,320 for those teaching high school (High School

Teachers, 2019).

42

The status of the teaching occupation is more complex in that

the adult in an early child classroom may be referred to as a teacher,

a child care worker or a provider with the title teacher having a

higher status. The early childhood job title is often determined by

the location of the classroom. The title worker or provider is used

in daycare settings but is not used in preschools or public schools.

The age of the young child is not the determining factor since many

preschools include infants and toddlers with the adults in the

classroom titled teachers.

The Relationship Between the Location of Early Childhood

Classrooms and Inequity

As the number of early childhood education initiatives grows in the

United States, there is little consensus regarding where these

programs should be located and who should oversee them. Placing

early childhood education within public school systems would

result in increased equity between early childhood teachers and

those teaching older students but increase overall educational

costs. While politicians, educators and families celebrate the

quality of the programs that have been created, conversations

around equity for teachers doing the work have been rare, leaving

teachers such as Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola choosing between

staying in the Head Start program or moving to a public school to

be afforded equity. We now have an opportunity and responsibility

to bring the issue of inequity into the national conversation.

The growing early childhood education movement has been

accelerated by states proposing and initiating programs focusing

on assisting parents in the workforce by making quality care more

affordable, enhancing healthy development beginning with

prenatal care, and/or closing the elementary school opportunity and

achievement gaps by providing prekindergarten to prepare all

children for elementary school. The oversight of the initiatives

differs according to the primary focus; for example, UPK in New

York State has focused on the educational benefits and is located

in the Department of Education, while in Washington State the

Department of Children, Youth, and Families was developed in

2017 with significantly increased funding to support families with

infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (Workman and Novoa, 2018).

The differing oversite of early childhood programs makes it

43

difficult to build a coalition to advocate for compensating early

child educators on par with other teachers.

Early childhood education programs are often not located

within the public school system due to the financial burden caused

by adding additional public school personnel and a lack of space.

In school districts, where according to the American Association

of School Administrators, salaries and benefits account for 80 to

85% of the entire district budget (American Association of School

Administrators, n.d.) the cost to provide equity for early childhood

teachers is no small matter. In both small and large communities

where school funding is based on property taxes, the additional

teacher salaries create further tension in passing school budgets

already stretched thin. Hard choices to achieve equity will need to

be made. Although there are early childhood programs such as a

Head Start, renting or given space within public schools, the

teachers are not employees of the school district and therefore do

not receive equivalent compensation.

States are making changes such as addressing quality by

increasing teacher qualifications but doing less so around

increasing compensation. The State Assessments for Early

Childhood Workforce Policies (Whitebook, McLean, Austin, &

Edwards, 2018) reported that states are making progress in

requiring higher teacher qualifications to promote quality with only

18 (35%) states rated having stalled in addressing qualifications. In

comparison, 44 states (86%) have stalled in addressing

compensation equity for early childhood teachers with

certification.

Compensation and the Intersectionality of Women’s Work,

Race and Immigrants

Early childhood teachers are overwhelmingly women and are often

women of color and immigrants. Although women make up the

majority of teachers in early childhood, elementary and secondary

education, it is particularly evident in early childhood where 97%

of teachers are female (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

Historically, caring for the home and young children has been seen

as women’s work and although early childhood teachers are

required to have degrees and certifications, teaching young

children may still be seen as an extension of what mothers have

44

done throughout history without compensation. Without

government assistance, attaching a financial value to caring for and

teaching children outside of the home is primarily decided by what

early stage parents are able to pay, without compromising the

savings they desire to put aside for their child’s future elementary

and secondary years as well as college.

Women of color are especially affected by the inequity.

Whitebook, McLean, Austin, and Edwards (2018) noted:

Early childhood educators are in economic distress, but this

reality falls disproportionately on early educators of color due

to the racial inequities that are woven through U.S. culture.

Women of color comprise about 40 percent of the ECE

workforce with African American early educators earning

$0.78 per hour less than their white counterparts, even after

controlling for educational attainment. (p. 6)

Experienced immigrant teachers work in early childhood

education more than at other levels. Due to differing certification

requirements in the United States and St. Vincent, when

immigrating, Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola found it easier to secure a

teaching job in a CBO rather than in the public schools. According

to Park, Mc Hugh, Jong, and Batalova (2015), “the foreign-born

share of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) workers

account for nearly one-fifth of the overall ECEC workforce and are

highly over-represented in lower-skilled and lower-paying sectors

of the profession such as family-based child-care workers; few

hold leadership positions as center directors or work as

prekindergarten (pre-K) teachers (para. 2). The gender

discrepancy is also evident within the immigrant population, “with

98% of immigrant early childhood teachers being female,

compared to 80% in elementary and middle schools and 63% in

secondary education” (Furuya, Nooraddini, Wang, & Waslin,

2019, p. 7).

Across the country there is a growing demand for culturally and

linguistically diverse early childhood programs. There is diversity

among women teaching in early childhood education, “with 40%

of the workforce being women of color” (Whitebook, McLean,

Austin, & Edwards, 2018, p. 24) and “20% being immigrants”

45

(Park, Mc Hugh, Jong, & Batalova, 2015, p. 1). With research

showing the long-term positive impact on children who have

teachers of the same race (Gershenson, Hart, Lindsay, &

Papageorge, 2017), it is important to maintain this diverse teaching

force. To do so early childhood teachers need to be compensated

fairly.

Along with the knowledge they gained while obtaining their

degrees and the skills they honed from years of experience in the

classroom, immigrant teachers such as Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola

bring to the children and their families a unique cultural

perspective. Immigrant teachers do not provide a “cultural time or

event” as supplemental activities; rather the rhythm of their work,

the songs they sing and stories they tell reflect their culture and are

an embedded aspect of their pedagogical presence. Although there

is an abundance of materials, books and toys in their classroom

which Ms. Nicola calls “niceties”, they bring in found objects,

especially from nature to provide “something real, not plastic’

which is reminiscent of and a necessity for teaching in Saint

Vincent which had a far more limited materials budget.

Although immigrant teachers add to the diversity in the teaching

profession, it may not be true that they have experience teaching in

diverse settings. When asked what is the primary difference, they

found teaching in the United States versus St. Vincent, without

hesitancy both Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicole immediately said the

diversity compared to the more homogeneous classrooms of their

country of birth. When entering the classroom, the diversity may

not be readily apparent since all of the children may appear

linguistically and racially similar. In programs such as Head Start

where families need to qualify financially, the economic status is

also known to be similar. The diversity became clear as they began

working with the children and their parents. Ms. Erica states, “we

have “learned to work with children and parents with different

languages and religions, who have different rituals and diverse

ways of parenting. In St. Vincent we tend to think more alike and

do the same things.”

Immigrants from non-English speaking countries add to the

number of bi-lingual teachers needed for the growing number of

dual language programs requested by both bilingual and English-

speaking parents of young children across the country. As research

46

continues to show the cognitive and social benefits of children

learning two languages (Kuhl, 2011), recruiting and keeping

teachers who speak a language other than English are essential.

Without bilingual teachers and dual language programs, children

with a home language other than English do not use their first

language in the classroom and English-speaking children are not

afforded the opportunity to learn a second language. Achieving

equity in dual language programs has been problematic, because if

there is a teacher in the early childhood classroom with a language

proficiency other than English, they are more likely to be the

assistant teacher (Whitebook, McLean, Austin, & Edwards, 2018).

This sends the troubling message that teachers speaking a language

other than English are not leaders or decision makers.

Addressing Inequity among Teachers

This section examines the steps that can be taken by the larger

educational community to address inequality, the importance of

building coalitions to advocate for equity and the success of past

large-scale early childhood programs.

Advocating for quality early childhood education

It is important that all educators understand the power of providing

quality education to all young children and the affect this will have

on the educational system as well as society overall. Research

shows positive results realized years and even decades later as seen

in the 2014 study of Head Start. Using data from the National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), Schanzenbach and Bauer

(2016) found, “Head Start improves educational outcomes

including increasing the probability that participants graduate from

high school, attend college, and receive a post-secondary degree,

license, or certification; increased positive parenting practices for

each ethnic group and for participants whose mothers did not have

a high school degree; and that particularly among African

American participants, positive effects on social, emotional, and

behavioral development becomes evident in adulthood measures

of self-control, self-esteem, and positive parenting practices” (para.

3). It is important to convince politicians and tax payers to make

this large investment when children are young even though the

47

results of the investment may be realized long after the provision

of service.

Developing an Inclusive Early Childhood Coalition around

Quality Practice

Moving towards equity for all educators requires a deeper

understanding of what quality looks like in early childhood

classrooms. Many educational organizations and school districts

have changed the K indicating kindergarten in K -12 education to

P for preschool with the expansion of early childhood education

programs. To address the development of young children across

all domains and the different structure needed within the early

childhood classroom, it is imperative that the letter change also

influences how school districts and organizations make

educational decisions. With few early childhood educators in

administrative positions within the P-12 systems and educational

organizations, P-12 is seen and decisions are made through the

historic lens of successful schooling rather than child development,

the cornerstone of quality early childhood education. A

misconception persists that teaching four-year-old children

requires less rigorous content or skill sets than utilized in

Kindergarten classrooms. Using this push down approach does not

take into account how young children think in a qualitatively

different fashion. It is important that all educators understand that

teaching young children requires a unique set of knowledge and

skills based on a deep understanding of the physical, language,

cognitive and social development of young children and the ability

to set up environments to guide and educate a classroom of children

at various levels.

As our knowledge of early childhood development expands

through the use of technology and societal influences on

development becomes more complex, teaching young children

requires even greater knowledge, flexibility and skills. Although

much of what we know about early development remains

consistent, such as children develop in sequence across domains

and the growth and development in one area affects development

in others; there is much more to consider. For example, there is

greater understanding of the importance of early attachment and of

48

infant stress levels through the testing of cortisol levels. There is

continuing study on the effects of nutrition, sleep and movement

on both the body and mind. This deeper understanding requires

teachers to create more dynamic environments, work more closely

with parents and develop more inclusive curricula addressing all

developmental domains.

Early childhood classrooms are different than those of older

children. Being responsible for building the foundation for strong

healthy bodies, active inquisitive minds and the social skills to

make connections with others, teachers build a schedule with an

integrated curriculum. Ms. Erica and Ms. Nicola understand that

children do not build with blocks with an intention to learn math,

instead they guide the children to a deeper understanding of

number and balance through the availability of materials and by

providing a deeper mathematical vocabulary. The total day is

language rich in an effort to reduce the enormous word gap

between children entering Kindergarten based on family income.

Vocabulary is introduced during choice time and teacher directed

activities, through stories, on walks, at meal time and while

children are climbing on structures.

There are more adults in the early childhood classroom and

smaller group sizes. Young children develop and learn throughout

the day, therefore lead teachers and assistants are responsible for

providing developmental experiences throughout the entire time

the children are present. As children age, the classroom schedule

differentiates time for studying the subjects which allows for

staffing patterns not required in early childhood education.

Examining Past Large-Scale Programs and Models that Have

Guided Them

As early childhood education initiatives develop and expand, they

are often described as new and innovative, ignoring the excellent

child care offered during World War II, Project Head Start

beginning in 1965 and the expansion of daycare in New York City

in the 1970s. These models addressed program quality, child

development, working with families, teacher training and wage

equity. Looking historically is helpful in thinking about our present

inequity.

49

During World War II, with the assistance of Eleanor Roosevelt,

the first government sponsored child care center was developed

under the Community Facilities Act (Langguth, n.d.). Women

were desperately needed in the factories to take the place of male

workers who went off to war, but the female absentee rate was high

due to the lack of reliable child care. A center providing childcare

for the Swan Island shipyard workers near Portland Oregon, is

often noted as the “best daycare ever” with much of what we strive

for in early childhood education today already being realized

including teachers being paid a professional wage. The placement

of the facility made the center accessible to mothers on their way

to work and was designed in a circular fashion around a playground

with covered porches for rainy days. Health and nutrition were

addressed, relationships were fostered and the curriculum was

developmentally appropriate. “Teachers with specializations in

early childhood education were recruited from all around the

United States paying a professional teaching wage” (Oregon

Historical Society, n.d., para. 7). The founders of the childcare

programs knew that if the workers in the factory were paid more

than the teachers, the women would leave the daycare centers for

higher pay as factory workers. After the war, as soldiers returned

and needed work, it became patriotic for women to leave the

factories and the daycares were closed.

Later in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty, Lyndon Johnson

launched Project Head Start offering free preschool for four-year

old children from families with low incomes. Beginning as a

summer program, Project Head Start under the U.S. Office of

Economic Opportunity was expanded to an academic year program

and moved to the Office of Child Development in the now U.S.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare. As the summer

program became an academic year program, pay and requirements

to teach in the program increased. Head Start which provided

services to 732,711 children in 2016-2017 (National Head Start

Association, n.d.), addressed education, social services, health,

nutrition with measures for quality and parent involvement. Today

Head Start teachers make far less than elementary school teachers

except in the District of Columbia where they are paid on par with

public elementary school teachers and in West Virginia and South

50

Dakota where the discrepancy is less than $10,000 (Barnett &

Friedman-Kraus, 2016).

In the early 1970s New York City had the largest publicly

funded child care system in the nation (Black, 2016). The staff was

unionized, and salaries were comparable to that offered to

elementary teachers in the public school system (Clines, 1969). In

1969, New York City introduced the first for-credit training

program to enhance the skills of and opportunities for daycare

teachers, making the link between child care quality and the quality

of working conditions and wages for teachers (Black, 2016). As

New York City faced financial difficulties in the mid 1970s, the

City increased the teacher child ratio and questioned teacher

qualifications for child care directors and teachers. The gap

between wages for early childhood teachers in daycares and

teachers in the public schools widened.

Early childhood teachers often are required to have specialized

training and continued professional development since many

programs where they choose to teach are based on theoretical

models calling for different skills and pedagogical practices in the

classroom. The models differ but maintain a curriculum focused

on developmentally appropriate practices and address all

developmental domains. Theoretical models that deeply influence

early childhood education programs today are founded on the

Maria Montessori program developed in Rome in 1907 and Lucy

Sprague Mitchell program developed in New York in 1918 that

later became Bank Street. The first Waldorf school began in 1919

in Germany and after World War II a group of women formed

Reggio Emelia preschools, the first secular preschools in Italy.

Middle class parents are aware of the models and advocate for

these programs within their school districts.

Conclusion

States and local communities are expanding early childhood

education programs across the United States to address the needs

of families with young children and to help close the educational

opportunity and achievement gaps for children from families with

low incomes. Early childhood educators who teach outside of the

public schools continue to be compensated far less that teachers

teaching older students. There is strong evidence of the benefits

51

gained by children attending high quality early childhood programs

which are dependent on effective and committed teachers who are

primarily women with a disproportionate number in the lowest

paying work, immigrants and women of color. Although states

have made gains in requiring equal credentialing for early

childhood teachers, equitable wages have not been realized. Head

Start and subsidized daycare programs in low income communities

are particularly vulnerable to losing teachers to the public schools

or to other more lucrative professions.

Achieving equity for early childhood teachers will require all

educators, decision makers and professional organizations

committed to social justice and educational renewal to advocate for

high quality early childhood education programs along with

equitable salaries and benefits for teachers teaching the youngest

children whether in public schools or in community based

organizations. Understanding and appreciating the unique field of

early childhood education and the different but comparable work

teachers of young children do is the first step in advocating for

equity. The work of an early childhood teacher requires an

understanding of child development and the optimal environments

in which children grow and learn, conducting developmental

assessments and working with families to support and enhance

developmental opportunities across all domains. It is different

work than teachers teaching older students do, but not of less

importance, and it needs to be compensated equally in order to

address the disparity in pay for all women, especially immigrants

and women of color.

References

American Association of School Administrators. (n.d.). School Budget

101. Retrieved on May 18 from: https://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/

policy_and_Advocacy/files/SchoolBudgetBriefFINAL.pdf

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Measuring Socioeconomic

Status and Subjective Social Status. Retrieved on May 15 from: https://

www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/class/ measuring-status.

Barnett, S. & Friedman-Kraus, A. H. (2016). State(s) of Head Start, The

National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved from: http://

nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ HS_Full_Reduced.pdf

52

Black, S. (2016) Child Care on The Cheap: Welfare Reform and The

Social Organization Of Child Care Work In New York City.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation York University, Toronto, Ontario.

Retrieved from: https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/ xmlui/bitstream/

handle/10315/32258/Black_Simon_J_2016_PhD.pdf?sequence=2&isAl

lowed=y

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Outlook Handbooks, Preschool Teachers. Retrieved May 10, 2019

from: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/

preschool-teachers.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Outlook Handbooks, Kindergarten and Elementary Teachers. Retrieved

May 10, 2019 from: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-

library/kindergarten-and-elementary-school-teachers.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Outlook Handbooks, Kindergarten and Elementary Teachers. Retrieved

May 10, 2019 from: https://www.bls.gov/ ooh/education-training-and-

library/high-school-teachers.htm.

Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. (2018). Opportunity,

Access and Respect for Early Educators. Retrieved from: http://cscce.

berkeley.edu/opportunity-access-and-respect-for-early-educators/

Clines, F. X. (1969). “Day-Care Union Accepts New Pact.” The New

York Times, Sept 20, 16.

Furuya, Y., Nooraddini, M., Wang, W., & Waslin, M. (2019). A portrait

of foreign-born teachers in the United States. Retrieved from: https://

www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/ Teacher_Paper.pdf

Gershenson, S., Hart, C., Lindsay, C., & Papageorge, N. (2017). The

long-run impacts of same-race teachers. IZA Discussion Paper No.

10630. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2940620

Kuhl. P. (2011). Early language leaning and literacy: Neuroscience

implications for education. Mind Brain and Education, 5(3):128-142.

Langguth, P. (n.d.) Eleanor Roosevelt and child care: Finding friends

in private industry. Retrieved from: http://www.usspotomac.org/

contact/documents/pcfall_eleanor_roosevelt__child_care.pdf

National Head Start Association. (n.d). National Head Start Fact Sheet.

Retrieved from: http://www.nhsa.org/national-head-start-fact-sheets

53

Oregon Historical Society (n.d.). Child care for Swan Island shipyard

workers. Retrieved May 20 from: https://oregonhistoryproject.org/

child-care-for-swan-island-shipyard-workers/

Park, M., Mc Hugh, M., Jong, J., & Batalova, J. (2015). Immigrant and

refugee workers in the early childhood education field: Taking a closer

look. Retrieved from: https://www. migrationpolicy.org/research/

immigrant-and-refugee-workers-early-childhood-field-taking-closer-

look

Schanzenbach D. & Bauer, L. (2016). The long term impact of the

Head Start program. Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/

research/the-long-term-impact-of-the-head-start-program/

US Department of Education. (2016). Fact sheet: Troubling pay gap for

early childhood teachers. Retrieved from: https://www.ed.gov/news/

press-releases/fact-sheet-troubling-pay-gap-early-childhood-teachers

Workman, S. & Novoa, C. (2018) Early childhood agenda for

governors in 2019. Retrieved from: https://www. americanprogress.

org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2018/12/13/ 464189/early-

childhood-agenda-governors-2019/

Whitebook, M., McLean, C., Austin, L.J.E., & Edwards, B. (2018).

Early Childhood Workforce Index – 2018. Berkeley, CA: Center for the

Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley.

Retrieved from: http://cscce.berkeley.edu/ topic/early-childhood-

workforce-index/2018/

54

Connect, Cultivate, Campaign: Toward a Social Movement Approach to

Educational Change

Tricia Niesz Kent State University

Abstract Recent years have seen a surge of organizing and activism around

schooling, and women (educators and parents in particular) have been leaders and supporters of these efforts. Many researchers have argued

that social movements are just what is needed to achieve meaningful

educational change. In this article, I highlight lessons from the growing

literature promoting a social movement approach to educational change. Specifically, I discuss how social movement actors generate power for

change by connecting through building networks, communities, and

alliances; cultivating visions and ideas for change through shared learning and knowledge construction; and campaigning for change

through mobilizing their networks for collective action.

Late in his life, John Goodlad (2015) wrote that “This message cannot be overstressed: Public schooling is the essential starting point for addressing the well-being of democracy” (p. 19). At the

time of this bold statement, the U.S. was well into the decades-long

era of serious challenges to public schooling resulting from the

heightened influence of the federal government on one hand and of

advocates of market-driven reforms on the other. As power and

influence has grown among those distant from schools and their

communities (including politicians, testing companies, charter

school organizations, and billionaire businessmen), local

democratic control over schooling has been seriously

compromised. Communities and educators have seen their role in

school decision-making shrink as impediments to local control

have multiplied, limiting the “civic collaboration around

schooling” (Bellamy & Goodlad, 2008, p. 570) promoted by

Goodlad and the National Network of Educational Renewal

(NNER) (Goodlad, Mantle-Bromley, & Goodlad, 2004).

55

Yet, these trends have been accompanied by a strong

resistance that appears to be growing. After years of troubling

reforms sponsored by powerful entities without the input of local

stakeholders, we have seen surges of civic engagement around

public schooling in the form of social movement activism. Parents,

educators, and young people across the country organized the opt-

out movement, which led to many thousands of families rejecting

standardized testing (Schroeder, Currin, & McCardle, 2018; Wang,

2017). So many students opted out of standardized testing in New

York that policy changes (albeit limited ones) soon followed

(Wang, 2017). More recently, red state teacher strikes and marches

in protest of the underfunding of public schools and the

unconscionably low pay to educators resulted in public support and

a few tangible victories. Well before these events, teacher activist

groups (which have been growing since No Child Left Behind)

have organized to resist contemporary policies and practices that

harm students and impede quality education (Niesz, 2018;

Picower, 2012).

Leading most of these efforts are women—educators and

parents fighting to (re)gain a voice in public school decision-

making. Women’s leadership in teachers’ unions, in teacher

activist and organizing groups, and in parent advocacy networks

has positioned them both at the forefront and in the trenches of

movements to resist the attacks on public education (Brown &

Stern, 2018; Marshall, 2002; Schroeder, Currin, and McCardle,

2018; Trasciatti, 2018). The prominence of women in these

movements is not historically novel. Studies of education activism

document women’s leadership in movements spanning the history

of education (e.g., Crocco, Munro, & Weiler, 1999; Marshall &

Anderson, 1999; Munro, 1995). Recent books document the range

of ways in which Black women educators engaged in organizing

and activism during the Jim Crow era (McCluskey, 2014) and the

Civil Rights Movement (Loder-Jackson, 2015). Fighting for justice

in education and society, these women founded and led

organizations and schools, they spoke out in public meetings and

through newspapers, they participated in litigation and other

actions, and they generally found ways to inform, influence, and

organize people (Loder-Jackson, 2015; McCluskey, 2014).

Educators involved in the women’s movement worked to promote

56

gender equity policy and greater inclusion of girls and women in

the curriculum, in school athletics, and in educational leadership,

among others (Gaskell, 2008; Marshall 2002). Throughout the

women’s movement, relationships and networks of women in and

across social movement organizations, from women’s interest

groups that developed organically to large teachers unions, created

the context for important change in the field of education (Gaskell,

2008; Marshall, 2002). In these cases and countless others, women

have joined together in communities, built shared understandings

and knowledge to counter the status quo, and worked vigorously to

advance their visions for change.

Social movement activism has not gone unnoticed in the

educational change literature. Although gender has not been a

primary focus of studies of social movement approaches to

educational change, we see women feature prominently in the case

studies that inform this literature. Some researchers have mined

cases of community organizing for educational change to show the

distinctive contributions such efforts can make in schools and

communities (e.g., Shirley, 1997, 2002; Warren, 2001). Others

have documented how educators have used social movement

tactics within education systems to promote significant school

change (e.g., Rincón-Gallardo, 2016, 2019; Niesz &

Krishnamurthy, 2013). Moreover, education scholars have

increasingly advocated social movement approaches to educational

change (see Anyon, 2005, 2009; Oakes & Lipton, 2002; Oakes &

Rogers, 2006, 2007; Oakes, Rogers, Blasi, & Lipton, 2008; Renée,

Welner, & Oakes, 2010; Rincón-Gallardo, 2016, 2019; Rincón-

Gallardo & Elmore, 2012; Rogers & Oakes, 2005; Warren, 2014).

Many of these scholars have argued that, in efforts for more

equitable and just public schooling in particular, the typical

technically-oriented approaches are doomed to fail. Thus, they

suggest, those of us who wish to support the fight for better and

more equitable schooling would do well to model our tactics on

social movements (see, e.g., Oakes & Rogers, 2006, 2007; Renée,

Welner, & Oakes, 2010; Rincón-Gallardo, 2019; Warren, 2014).

Movements, they suggest, have much to teach us about developing

the power to directly confront the cultural and political barriers to

powerful institutional transformation.

In this article, I explore social movement approaches to

57

educational change, focusing on how movements generate their

power. I argue that, for communities and educators seeking local

or broader changes in public schooling, there is a lot to be learned

from social movement activism. Successful movements grow their

influence by connecting for change through forming networks, by

cultivating change through learning and generating shared

knowledge, and by campaigning for change through mobilizing

people and resources for collective action.

Why Adopt a Social Movement Approach to Educational

Change?

Despite powerful examples of education activism through

history—many of which feature women at the forefront—there are

many obstacles for those educators who would engage social

movement tactics to pursue change (Marshall & Anderson, 2008).

Historically, educators were not socialized to be activist

professionals (Marshall & Anderson, 2008). Given the

romanticized ideal “of the selfless educator working for the good

of the children,” the public tends to expect teachers to be apolitical

(Brickner, 2016, p. 11). Although recent U.S. teacher strikes

garnered public support, there were still many who criticized them

as unseemly and undignified (Trasciatti, 2018). Views that teachers

should be apolitical are related, at least in part, to the feminized

nature of the teaching profession. Brown and Stern (2018) found

that the view of teachers’ work as women’s work presented

challenges to educators’ activism. Indeed, throughout most of the

twentieth century, social movement organizing tended to be seen

as the domain of men (Stall & Stoecker, 1998; Trasciatti, 2018).

This is despite the century’s myriad women-led movements (e.g.,

Suffrage Movement, Temperance Movement, Women’s

Movement, etc.) and the growth of feminist and women-led

organizing (Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Stall & Stoecker, 1998;

Trasciatti, 2018).

What is important to note for educators unfamiliar with social

movement organizing or uncomfortable with the activist label is

that social movements offer models and tactics for a range of types

of educational change pursued by those with a range of

professional identities. Among those who argue for a social

movement approach to educational change, there are essentially

58

two positions. One group of scholars writing about equity- and

justice-focused efforts uses social movement theory to argue that

successful change must be pursued from outside institutions,

through coalitions of organizers, community members, and other

stakeholders. Educators are important allies in these efforts, but

this social movement model for change is essentially community-

and organizer-driven (see Anyon, 2005, 2009; Oakes & Lipton,

2002; Oakes & Rogers, 2006, 2007; Oakes, Rogers, Blasi, &

Lipton, 2008; Renée, Welner, & Oakes, 2010; Rogers & Oakes,

2005; Warren, 2014). Another position on educational change as

social movement was developed through studies of successful

educational change pursued within education institutions, by

educators engaging social movement tactics and methods (see

Grossman, 2010; Niesz & Krishnamurthy, 2013; Rincón-Gallardo,

2016, 2019; Rincón-Gallardo & Elmore, 2012). Researchers

writing about this approach have used social movement theory to

explore how unusually successful educational change efforts

reflected features of social movements. They also described how

educators behaved as social movement actors, taking on new roles

and exploding the norms of the system from the inside.

Despite the different theories of action behind these two

positions, there is remarkable agreement on why a social

movement model is necessary for the success of efforts for

significant educational change. In essence, all of these researchers

argue that change in schooling cannot be accomplished through the

technical means usually employed in school change efforts. This is

because technical approaches cannot overcome the social and

cultural norms and the power dynamics that together protect the

status quo. Typical school reform efforts are not powerful enough

to transform the “cultural logics” (Oakes et al., 2008) or “default

culture of schooling” (Rincón-Gallardo, 2016; Rincón-Gallardo &

Elmore, 2012), but social movements can be. In Rincón-Gallardo

and Elmore’s (2012) words, “Social movements act as forces for

social innovation because they operate in fundamentally different

ways from public agencies and work against certain fundamental

patterns of culture and practice in mainstream, established

organizations” (p. 477). They are countercultural (Rincón-

Gallardo, 2016) and counterhegemonic (Niesz & Krishnamurthy,

2014).

59

The field of social movement studies on which these authors

draw is massive, with diverse schools of thought and theories of

social change. Drawing on the work of Marshall Ganz (2000),

Jeannie Oakes and Martin Lipton (2002) presented one remarkably

simple framework for the work of social movement organizing:

“developing relationships, common understandings, and action.

All three activities enable communities to gain and use new

resources to effect change” (p. 398; see also Oakes & Rogers,

2006). In what follows, I adopt their framework to discuss how

movements generate their power and the implications of this for

educational change.

Connecting for Change: Networks and Communities in

Movements

People who are organized add numerical, political, and

economic power to capacity to resist or to balance resistance.

(Oakes & Lipton, 2002, p. 402)

Social movements are characterized by their network of leaders,

organizers, activists, and sympathizers. Drawing together like-

minded actors interested in creating change, these networks foster

power in several ways:

1. Power in numbers: An organized collective can be heard in

ways that a single individual cannot. Collective action has

more impact than actions taken by individuals. Collectives

can amass more resources for change than individuals can.

2. Power in vision: Social movements generate a vision for the

what and the how of creating change through the activity,

dialogue, and learning that take place in their communities.

3. Power in structure: A social movement network provides the

structure for mobilizing resources and action.

4. Power in relationships: Relationships built in social

movement networks help to sustain the commitment to the

challenging work of organizing and activism.

Growing the network of people committed to a cause is thus a

priority in social movement approaches to educational change.

An important aspect of building communities for change is

60

developing alliances and extending the network across diverse

groups and organizations. Some advocates of a social movement

approach to educational change have emphasized the importance

of coalition building that connects organizers and activists outside

schools with those inside (e.g., Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Renée,

Welner, & Oakes, 2010). Studies have highlighted alliances for

educational change built between educators and parents,

community organizers, social movement organizations, elected

officials and other policy actors, and university researchers (see,

e.g., Grossman, 2010; Niesz & Krishnamurthy, 2013, 2014; Oakes

& Rogers, 2006). Pressure, resources, and visible support from

those outside schools can upend business-as-usual in change

efforts. This not only builds power in numbers, it may also create

a shared vision across roles and institutions. Furthermore, the

network can be mobilized for specific collective actions. Not

incidentally, the relationships built in such coalitions become

social capital, “social ties [that] create norms of solidary and

reciprocity among community members” (Oakes & Rogers, 2006,

p. 99).

In cases of social movement approaches to educational change

within education institutions, researchers have pointed to how

movement networks transform roles and shift power relationships.

Rincón-Gallardo and Elmore (2012), for example, explored a case

of movement-like educational change in Mexico that fostered a

“fundamental shift in the relationship between policy leaders and

educators,” which led to “opportunities to open bargaining arenas

to adapt institutional norms, structures, and practices…” (p. 485-

486; see also Rincón-Gallardo, 2019). In this case, more

“horizontal relationships of mutual influence” (p. 471) emerged

that resembled those of social movements to a greater extent than

those of typical institutional change initiatives pursued

hierarchically. This is important because shared commitment must

be authentic, not mandated. In the case in Mexico, the movement

grew not through top-down directives but because of “the personal

transformation that occurred when teachers experienced powerful

learning themselves or when they witnessed visible improvements

in the learning and engagement of their students” (Rincón-

Gallardo, 2016, p. 423). The shared vision spread like a

‘contagion,’ at the grassroots. The increasing numbers of

61

committed educators resulted in a network that ultimately

mobilized for broader change. At the same time, they continued to

learn from one another in the context of their relationships

(Rincón-Gallardo, 2016, 2019).

Whether within education institutions or in coalitions that

bridge schools and other outside actors, social movement

approaches to educational change result in new communities that

foster power in numbers, vision, structure, and relationships. In

movement networks, significant shifts in roles and relationships

have the potential to undercut the cultural norms and power

dynamics of institutions. As discussed next, movement networks

also generate power by serving as communities for learning and

knowledge construction.

Cultivating Change: Learning and Knowledge Construction in

Movements

[I]t must be recognised that not only do people learn through

their engagement in social movements but that these movements

actually make and disseminate new knowledge and

understanding through their activity. (Martin, 1999, p. 12)

When it comes to social movements, most of us think of a

network of movement actors and supporters, as well as the

collective actions taken to promote the cause. Less obvious to

outsiders is the learning and knowledge construction that happens

within movements. Yet, this work builds the vision central to the

work of the movement, as well as the range of ideas that support it.

Indeed, Budd Hall (2006) argued that “it is precisely the learning

and knowledge generating capacities of social movements” that

account for their power (p. 153). By promoting learning and the

creation of alternative ways of understanding the world and

specific issues, social movements cultivate change. Understanding

the importance of this work, how it generates power, can lead to

further insights for educational change.

Adult education researchers have built an entire body of

literature on learning and knowledge construction in social

movements (Niesz et al., 2018). In addition to investigating

programs of non-formal education developed within social

62

movements, these researchers have also developed a robust body

of scholarship on informal learning in social movements.

Movement actors, they argue, learn through their participation with

others in a range of social movement activities, from everyday

dialogue to organizing to collective actions.

What is learned through social movement participation ranges

widely. My colleagues and I identified five types of knowledge that

researchers have discussed in the literature on social movement

learning (Niesz et al., 2018; see also, Foley, 1999; Rule, 2011):

1. Knowledge about issues central to the social movement.

Movements promote existing knowledge and develop their

new knowledge related to the issues at the center of their

goals. Environmental activists, for example, learn the science

of climate change. Educators seeking to promote democracy-

oriented school change may engage with research and

theories related to democracy and education.

2. Skills and practices of organization, mobilization, and

collective action. Movement actors must learn how to

organize and engage in action to advance their goals.

Particular philosophies and preferences guide the types of

organizing and actions in which specific movements engage,

and these become sources of learning.

3. The vision of the movement. The vision of the movement

includes the movement’s values, its goals, and its image of a

better future. Dykstra and Law (1994) explained that this

vision allows social movement participants “to construct an

alternative map of reality” (p. 123). A vision of classrooms in

which children are engaged actively in problem-based

learning or of a school that serves as a community center

might guide a social movement approach to educational

change efforts. These visions are also sources of learning.

4. Individual and collective identity. Movement actors learn

who they are and who they are becoming through movement

participation. Participation in social movement communities

contributes to the development of individual and collective

identities.

5. Social critique and agency. A number of researchers use

Paulo Freire’s (2000) term, conscientization, to refer to the

potential of social movement participants to learn to ‘read the

63

world,’ analyze and critique the status quo, and develop

critical consciousness. For some movement actors,

participation in movements also leads to agency, an

understanding that, despite limited access to formal sources

of power, they can contribute to social change.

The learning of each of these kinds of knowledge contributes to

the cultivation of change.

Scholarship on social movement learning also highlights the

generative nature of movements as learning communities.

Knowledge is not only learned but actively created in these

communities. As such, movement actors work together to create

something new in terms of their vision, the ideas that support it,

and how to pursue it. Sociologists Ron Eyerman and Andrew

Jamison (1991) wrote a book about the intellectual activity of

social movements in which they argued that movements provide

“the social action from where new knowledge originates” (p. 48).

Movement knowledge, both learned and generated, forms the basis

of the demands movements make on the powerful.

Interestingly, in some of the scholarship promoting a social

movement approach to educational change, learning and

knowledge production is not merely a byproduct of the work of

organizing and activism but deliberate inquiry. Oakes and Rogers

(2006), for example, discussed the participatory inquiry that guided

struggles for educational justice in California. In one example, a

group of 30 students (along with some teachers and researchers)

spent three years investigating issues of equity in opportunity and

policy at their school in order to increase college access for low-

income students of color. In a second example, a group of Los

Angeles area teachers engaged in inquiry around issues of

equitable schooling that led to an online journal, a public forum for

the teachers’ inquiry called Teaching to Change LA. In both cases,

these inquiry projects led to some change, albeit not the

institutional changes that were sought. Oakes and Rogers (2006)

concluded, “Spreading disruptive knowledge is a necessary but not

sufficient condition for the kind of social change needed to

accomplish equitable schools” (p. 92).

Ultimately, social movements cultivate change through the

learning and knowledge construction that takes place through

64

shared activity over time, sometimes deliberately through inquiry

and often tacitly through engaging with others in organizing and

activism. Not only does such learning and knowledge construction

lead to the transformation of individual and collective

understandings, identities, and commitments, it also builds the

vision and practice of the movement. In these ways, learning and

knowledge production in social movements contribute to the

generative power of collective work for change—its ability to

produce innovation and alternatives to the status quo. Yet, in the

end, the movement’s success depends upon the extent to which

these alternatives can be heard and embraced by broader audiences

and inform action. The same is true for educational change.

Campaigning for Change: Collective Action in Social

Movements

Organizing groups not only create "disruptive knowledge," but

act on it to shift the existing power balance, to persuade through

force of argument, and to enhance their opportunities for civic

participation. (Oakes et al., 2008, p. 361)

Networks that support learning and the construction of

knowledge are not unusual in the field of education. It is Ganz’

(2000) third step, engaging in collective action, that most

distinguishes social movements from existing educational change

networks. To be heard beyond their social movement networks,

organizers and activists know that they must promote their vision

to new audiences. Collective actions mobilize people—as well as

ideological and material resources—to make public demands of

those in power. Oakes et al. (2008) referred to this work as “actions

that persuade with the weight of their numbers, their capacity for

material damage, and the garnering of sympathy and support by

bearing witness” (p. 361).

In today’s political climate in the U.S., the repertoire of social

movement actions is certainly familiar: marches, rallies, sit-ins,

boycotts, lawsuits, petitions, letter writing and phone call drives,

social media campaigns, mass presence at public meetings with

elected officials, and other (often creative) protest actions. Some

advocates of social movement approaches promote these types of

65

collective actions, arguing that engaging conflict is necessary for

some kinds of educational change (Oakes & Lipton, 2002).

On the other hand, when pursuing educational change within

institutions, building consensus is often preferable to engaging

conflict. As such, other tactics are needed to grow the movement

within the institution. In a study of a radical school reform

movement in India, I found that educators in the struggle to

transform classroom practice expended tremendous amounts of

time and effort to persuade diverse groups of stakeholders to take

up their vision of activity-based learning (Niesz & Krishnamurthy,

2013). Although officials within the movement had the power to

mandate change (and occasionally used it), they knew that the

priority was building the movement through painstaking work of

dialogue about learning and the power of student-centered

approaches to classroom practice. These strategic ‘dialogue’

campaigns were a form of collective action (Niesz &

Krishnamurthy, 2013).

Regardless of a whether conflict-oriented or a consensus-

oriented approach to collective action is adopted, social movement

actors do important behind-the-scenes work to promote the success

of their campaigns. Activists must both frame their message and

strategically seize political opportunities (Grossman, 2010; Oakes

& Lipton, 2006; Oakes et al., 2008; Rincón-Gallardo & Elmore,

2012). Social movement framing and pursuing political

opportunities are the focus of attention and research in the social

movement studies literature. This work offers lessons to

educational change agents.

If a primary goal of collective action is “to persuade through

force of argument” (Oakes et al., 2008, p. 361), the message and

vision of the movement must be framed in ways that are

compelling to new audiences. Grossman (2010) described this as

“how political actors strategically alter meanings in ways that

resonate within a society and its institutions” (p. 662). In his study

of an educator movement to except students from statewide

graduation exams, he found that movement actors constructed their

battle through an “equity frame” (p. 676). Portraying their work for

exam exemption as a fight for equal education for all students, they

were able to persuade policy makers to listen and respond to their

demands. As Oakes et al. (2008) explained, framing is about the

66

development of “mobilizing ideas” that promote “a new

conception of an existing social problem that moves it from being

seen as regrettable and inevitable to being considered an injustice

that can and should be remedied” (p. 15).

Identifying and exploiting political opportunities is equally

important in the success of social movements. Political

opportunities may include regime changes in government or

institutions, allies moving into positions of power, and events that

highlight the need for change, among many others (Rincón-

Gallardo, 2019). In his study, Grossman (2010) found that

movement actors analyzed “the policy-making landscape to look

for potential openings to make their case” (p. 681); they identified

political opportunities inherent in policy maker dissent around

issues of assessment policy. In my research in India (Niesz &

Krishnamurthy, 2013, 2014), we found that movement leaders

used evidence of state-wide school failure as a political

opportunity. State education’s lack of success offered an

opportunity to promote a radically different model of classroom

practice with little resistance. An example of how identifying

political opportunities goes hand-in-hand with framing, the

movement leaders then framed their struggle as one for authentic

learning in schools.

Conclusion

By definition, social movements are potential engines of

change, disruptive to interests vested in the status quo and

potentially the source of new imaginaries to live by. (Holland et

al., 2018, p. 270)

From the abolition and suffrage movements to #metoo and

Black Lives Matter, women have sought justice through social

movement participation and leadership throughout history. Despite

the obstacles and risks, they have connected with each other,

cultivated visions, and campaigned for civil and human rights.

Women have also been at the forefront of contemporary

movements to resist the myriad attacks on American public

schooling. As traditional democratic and professional participation

in school governance and decision-making has been made

67

increasingly difficult by powerful interests (often driven by profit

or ideology), women’s resistance through social movement activity

has only grown.

In this essay, I have argued that social movements have much

to teach about varied kinds of educational change efforts, from

local school renewal to broader movements for justice in

education. Drawing on the work of scholars promoting a social

movement approach to educational change, I have outlined ways

in which social movement organizers and activists generate their

power: they connect through the building of networks,

relationships, and alliances; they cultivate visions and ideas for

change through shared learning and knowledge construction; they

campaign for change through mobilizing their networks for

collective action. This work is generative, building communities,

identities, knowledge, and actions that did not exist before the hard

work of social movement organizing. For both local school

improvement and broader struggles for educational justice, social

movements offer models for creating the power required to achieve

meaningful educational change.

References

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education,

and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Anyon, J. (2009). Progressive social movements and educational

equity. Educational Policy, 23(1), 194-215.

Bellamy, G. T., & Goodlad, J. I. (2008). Continuity and change in the

pursuit of a democratic public mission for our schools. Phi Delta

Kappan, 89(8), 565-571.

Brickner, R. K. (2016). Tweeting care: Educators’ dissent through

social media in the US and Canada. Labour/Le Travail, 77(1), 11-36.

Brown, A. E., & Stern, M. (2018). Teachers’ work as women's work:

Reflections on gender, activism, and solidarity in new teacher

movements. Feminist Formations, 30(3), 172-197.

Crocco, M., Munro, P., & Weiler, K. (1999). Pedagogies of resistance:

Women educator activists, 1880-1960. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Dykstra, C., & Law, M. (1994). Popular social movements as educative

forces: Towards a theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the 35th

68

Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 121–126).

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.

Eyerman, R., & Jamison, A. (1991). Social movements: A cognitive

approach. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University

Press.

Foley, G. (1999). Learning in social action: A contribution to

understanding informal education. New York, NY: Zed Books.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY:

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Ganz, M. (2000). Organizing: People, power, and change. Syllabus for

course at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Gaskell, J. (2008). Learning from the women's movement about

educational change. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of

Education, 29(4), 437-449.

Goodlad, J. I. (2002). Kudzu, rabbits, and school reform. Phi Delta

Kappan, 84(1), 16-23.

Goodlad, J. I. (2015). A nonnegotiable agenda. In J. I. Goodlad, R.

Soder & B. McDaniel (Eds.), Education and the making of a

democratic people (pp. 9-28). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Goodlad, J. I., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. J. (2004). Education

for everyone: Agenda for Education in a Democracy. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, F. D. (2010). Dissent from within: How educational insiders

use protest to create policy change. Educational Policy, 24(4), 655-686.

Hall, B. L. (2006). Social movement learning: Theorizing a Canadian

tradition. In T. Fenwick, T. Nesbit, & B. Spencer (Eds.), Contexts of

adult education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 239-238). Toronto,

Canada: Thompson Educational Publishing.

Holland, D., Price, C., & Westermeyer, W. H. (2018). Political

becoming in movements: Lessons from the environmental, Tea Party,

and Rastafari movements. In C. Strauss & J. R. Friedman (Eds.),

Political sentiments and social movements (pp. 265-293). Cham,

Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Loder-Jackson, T. L. (2015). Schoolhouse activists: African American

educators and the long Birmingham civil rights movement. Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.

69

Marshall, C. (2002). Teacher unions and gender equity policy for

education. Educational Policy, 16(5), 707-730.

Marshall, C., & Anderson, A. L. (Eds.). (2008). Activist educators:

Breaking past limits. New York, NY: Routledge.

Martin, I. (1999). Introductory essay: Popular education and social

movements in Scotland today. In J. Crowther, I. Martin, & M. Shaw

(Eds.), Popular education and social movements in Scotland today (pp.

1-25). Leicester, UK: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

McCluskey, A. T. (2014). A forgotten sisterhood: Pioneering Black

women educators and activists in the Jim Crow South. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Munro, P. (1995). Educators as activists: Five women from

Chicago. Social Education, 59(5), 274-278.

Niesz, T. (2018). When teachers become activists. Phi Delta Kappan,

99(8), 25–29.

Niesz, T., Korora, A. M., Burke Walkuski, C., & Foot, R. E. (2018).

Social movements and educational research: Toward a united field of

scholarship. Teachers College Record, 120(3), 1–41.

Niesz, T., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2013). Bureaucratic activism and

radical school change in Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Educational

Change, 14(1), 29–50.

Niesz, T., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2014). Movement actors in the

education bureaucracy: The figured world of Activity Based Learning

in Tamil Nadu. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 45(2), 148–166.

Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in

diverse communities: School reform as social movement. Journal of

Educational Change, 3(3-4), 383-406.

Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for

education and justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2007). Radical change through radical means.

Journal of Educational Change, 8(3), 193-206.

Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Blasi, G., & Lipton, M. (2008). Grassroots

organizing, social movements, and the right to high-quality education.

Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 4(2), 339-371.

Picower, B. (2012). Practice what you teach: Social justice education

in the classroom and the streets. New York, NY: Routledge.

70

Renée, M., Welner, K. G., & Oakes, J. (2010). Social movement

organizing and equity-focused educational change: Shifting the ‘‘zone

of mediation.’’ In A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, D. Hopkins, & A.

Lieberman (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational

change (pp. 153-168). New York, NY: Springer International

Handbooks.

Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2016). Large scale pedagogical transformation as

widespread cultural change in Mexican public schools. Journal of

Educational Change, 17(4), 411-436.

Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2019). Liberating learning: Educational change

as social movement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Elmore, R. F. (2012). Transforming teaching

and learning through social movement in Mexican public middle

schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82(4), 471-490.

Rogers, J., & Oakes, J. (2005). John Dewey speaks to Brown: Research,

democratic social movement strategies, and the struggle for education

on equal terms. Teachers College Record, 107(9), 2178-2203.

Rule, P. (2011). Cross-learning: The possibilities of a learning dialogue

between the HIV & AIDS and disability movements. Studies in the

Education of Adults, 43(2), 216-233.

Schroeder, S., Currin, E., & McCardle, T. (2018). Mother tongues: The

opt-out movement’s vocal response to patriarchal, neoliberal education

reform. Gender and Education, 30(8), 1001-1018.

Shirley, D. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Shirley, D. (2002). Valley Interfaith and school reform: Organizing for

power in South Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Stall, S., & Stoecker, R. (1998). Community organizing or organizing

community? Gender and the crafts of empowerment. Gender &

Society, 12(6), 729-756.

Trasciatti, M. (2018). Sisters on the soapbox: Elizabeth Gurley Flynn

and her female free speech allies’ lessons for contemporary women

labor activists. Humanities, 7(3), 69.

Walter, P. (2012). Cultural codes as catalysts for collective

conscientisation in environmental adult education: Mr. Floatie, tree

squatting and Save-our-Surfers. Australian Journal of Adult Learning,

52(1), 114-133.

71

Wang, Y. (2017). The social networks and paradoxes of the opt-out

movement amid the Common Core State Standards implementation:

The case of New York. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(34), 1–

27.

Warren, M. R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to

revitalize American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Warren, M. R. (2014). Transforming public education: The need for an

educational justice movement. New England Journal of Public Policy,

26(1), 1-16.

72

Feminist Epistemology and

Epistemological Pluralism:Implications for the Development of

Democratic Citizens

Aaron S. Zimmerman Texas Tech University

Abstract In this conceptual essay, I argue that if schools are to serve as moral

learning communities within which students are prepared for democratic

participation, then educators must recognize epistemological pluralism as a foundational postulate for their curriculum and instruction. Using

the theoretical framework of feminist epistemology, I argue that the

unique manner in which marginalized students know the world must be

recognized and legitimized by educators, else hierarchies of knowledge and privilege will be reinforced through public schooling. Implications

for public school classrooms and for teacher education programs are

discussed.

For schools to fulfill their public commitment, schools must function as institutions of moral development (Goodlad, Mantle-Bromley, & Goodlad, 2004; Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990), and, it can be argued that this moral development is inseparable from democratic participation. As

Thomas (1990) wrote, “Elementary and secondary schools,

because they figure so prominently in the tapestry of democratic

ideals and possibilities that we have woven as a nation, have a

compelling obligation to understand themselves as moral learning

communities” (p. 292).

Thus, to facilitate the moral development of all students, schools

must be places where multiple voices are recognized and

legitimized (Althof & Berkowitz, 2006; Anderson, 1998; Bacia &

Ittel, 2017; Schuitema, Radstake, van de Pol, & Veugelers, 2018).

If, alternatively, only one way of speaking and knowing are

recognized within a given school, democratic participation within

the school may be limited; and, in turn, when democratic

73

participation is limited, certain individuals may become

marginalized, and, hence, schools may fall short of their

responsibility to cultivate virtuous citizens capable of participating

democratically within a pluralistic society.

Recognizing and legitimizing the voices of female students

(Caron, 2011; Fine, 2003), female teachers (Blase, 1993;

Dillabough, 1999; Klassen & Chiu, 2010), and female educational

leaders (Bell & Chase, 1993; Grogan, 2008; Mertz & McNeely,

1998) remains a perennial problem within schools. In this

conceptual essay, I argue that one of the reasons why these voices

have been marginalized relates to a lack of recognition of feminist

epistemology. Specifically, if schools and classrooms validate only

one way of knowing and participating in academic discussion, then

the democratic participation of female students, female teachers,

and female leaders may be limited. Therefore, in this essay I argue

that if schools and classroom are to become virtuous spaces of

democratic participation (for all members of the school

community), then these spaces must recognize and legitimize

multiple ways of knowing.

Feminist Epistemology

The theoretical framework of feminist epistemology represents a

branch of philosophy that explores the manner in which gender

influences the notion of what counts as knowledge and what counts

as knowing (Alcoff & Potter, 1993; Harding, 2006). In particular,

feminist epistemology calls attention to how dominant conceptions

of knowledge and knowing may disadvantage women, including

the areas of health and work (Fricker, 2007). When individuals

insist that knowledge be regarded as inherently objective, rational,

and without bias, they may (perhaps unknowingly) be obfuscating

biases that do, in fact, exist and privilege certain segments of

society.

Asserting that knowledge is free of bias is, indeed, an act of

power that positions one group over another. This is especially

prominent in the area of science, which is commonly presumed to

be value-free; yet, feminist epistemologists have illuminated how

making knowledge claims in the “hard sciences” is still a social

and political act. Indeed, it has been shown that making the

epistemological claim that science is objective can be used as a tool

74

to manipulate and oppress marginalized social groups (Bleier,

1984; Lacey, 1999; Schiebinger, 1989; Spanier, 1995).

Likewise, in the field of teacher education, scholars have

highlighted how seemingly neutral curricula of learning to teach

(such as observing a mentor teacher or reflecting on whether or not

learning objectives were met during a given lesson) may, in fact,

be legitimizing certain ways of knowing while devaluing other

ways of knowing (Britzman, 2003; Fendler, 2003; Segall, 2002).

Preservice teachers are instructed to focus on particular dimensions

of the classroom (e.g., learning objectives and classroom

management) and to ignore other dimensions (e.g., the affect of the

classroom). These curricular decisions are far from neutral or

objective; rather, they actively prioritize one particular way of

being a teacher and one particular way of thinking about teaching.

Preservice teachers are explicitly and implicitly told that there is

one way to know one’s subject and one way to know how to teach

that subject (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al., 2009; Labaree,

1992; Segall, 2004).

In response to this trend, feminist epistemology highlights the

way in which acts of knowledge generation and acts of knowledge

acquisition are always situated within particular contexts and

always filtered through individual subjectivities. In this way,

knowledge can be argued to be concrete and specific rather than

abstract and universal. Since it can be presumed that gender is a

construct that continually and inescapably mediates interactions

and ways of being in the social world (Bem, 1993; Butler, 1990),

it can be presumed that females have unique ways of knowing that

are rooted in their lived experiences (Applebaum, 2008; Scott,

1991). This is a critical insight, as it points to the fact that there is

no one “correct” way of knowing, since, inherently, all ways of

knowing are, in part, rooted in subjectivity and political power

(Bohman, 2012; Coady, 2010; Fricker, 2007). Thus, when

knowledge is presented and discussed within schools, educators

should be aware that all knowledge is generated, transmitted and

received by individuals with unique lived experiences and situated

realities. Educators should presume that there are multiple ways of

knowing; and, any claim to the contrary should be treated with

skepticism.

Taking the reality of epistemological pluralism seriously is not

a luxury. Indeed, when democratic participation is valued and

75

promoted, epistemological assumptions must be critically

examined. Otherwise, hidden assumptions regarding the nature of

knowledge and the nature of knowing may motivate educators to

silence marginalized voices even in ostensibly democratic

classrooms (Dotson, 2011; Salvano-Pardieu, Fontaine,

Bouazzaoui, & Florer, 2009; Thornberg, 2006). Yet, incorporating

epistemological pluralism into the democratic classroom presents

a set of significant challenges.

The Potential Limits of Deliberative Democracy

In their treatise on deliberative democracy, Gutmann and

Thompson (2004) made it clear that, by their account, a system of

deliberative democracy has the prerogative to impose judgments

about the laws it attempts to enact. Gutmann and Thompson argued

that the principles of deliberative democracy are rooted in

reciprocity – including tolerance, mutual respect, and even

favorable attitudes towards opposing viewpoints (p. 79). As such,

within a democracy, majority support is neither necessary nor

sufficient in order to pass a law; instead, laws must abide by the

principles of non-repression and non-discrimination.

If, for example, a law deprives critical resources to a minority

group, the law, within the context of a democracy, cannot be

regarded as legitimate, regardless of how many citizens of the

collective society endorse the given proposal. Similarly, in the

context of democratic education, local communities cannot, by

virtue of majority consensus, endorse public curricula that violate

the principles of non-repression or non-discrimination. For

example, a curriculum that teaches racial intolerance would be

unacceptable, as would a curriculum containing partisan religious

principles.

Gutmann noted the theory of creationism (i.e., the rejection of

the scientific theory of evolution) as an example of a worldview

that need not – and, indeed, must not – be recognized as legitimate

by any official curriculum within a system of democratic

education. This is because, according to Gutmann, the credo of

creationism is fundamentally indefensible and irreconcilable

within the reasoned dialogue that democratic systems of education

are expected to cultivate. By treating “every moral opinion as

equally worthy encourages children in the false subjectivism that

‘I have my opinion and you have yours and who’s to say who’s

76

right?’ This moral understanding does not take the demands of

democratic justice seriously” (Gutmann, 1999, pp. 55-56).

Gutmann (1999) argued that we, as a democratic society, must

be selective about the content that is allowed to enter our public

classrooms, since, “we legitimately value education not just for the

liberty but also for the virtue that it bestows on children” (p. 36).

In other words, educators are expected to place a premium on the

enculturation of particular virtues over a pluralism of perspectives.

“Democratic education is not neutral among conceptions of the

good life, nor does its defense depend on a claim to neutrality” (p.

46). A system of democratic education that aims to prepare

students for participation in a democratic society must necessarily

aim to predispose children towards ways of life and thinking that

are consistent with democratic citizenship.

In response to what Gutmann proposed, and in light of the

insights of feminist epistemology, there are many reasons why we

might be wary of allowing certain individuals to exercise a

“compulsion to rationalize the irrational section of society”

(Berlin, 2002, p. 196). Gutmann argued that the role of democratic

education is to cultivate a certain type of citizen, one who is able

to engage in reasoned deliberation based on the principles of non-

discrimination and non-repression. Thus, according to her, it is the

role of democratic education to teach young citizens how to engage

in this type of rational democracy. This, of course, becomes

problematic when we remember that feminist epistemology

presumes that the act of insisting that rational deliberation is

always neutral and objective may, in fact, be a tool that hegemonic

forces utilize to maintain the status quo. When certain discourses

are privileged over others and when certain discourses become

“inappropriate” to talk about in school, certain (vital) discourses

may become marginalized and, hence, excluded from the public

sphere. The arbitration as to what counts as a public matter and

what counts as a private matter is, indeed, nothing less than a

political act (Fraser, 1997).

In fairness, Gutmann (1999) did not advocate for neutrality:

The case for teaching secular but not religious standards of

reasoning does not rest on the claim that secular standards are

neutral among all religious beliefs. The case rests instead on

the claim that secular standards constitute a better basis upon

77

which to build a common education for citizenship than any set

of sectarian religious beliefs – better because secular standards

are both a fairer and firmer basis for peacefully reconciling our

differences. (p. 103)

This claim, however, fails to address the subversive (and

fundamentally non-democratic) exercise of power that occurs

when alternative discourses – counter-narratives that develop in

reaction to the exclusionary nature of the dominant discourse – are

labeled as private, “sectarian” matters.

As an example, Fraser (1997) pointed out that some citizens

may object to framing domestic abuse and discriminatory hiring

practices as issues that are appropriate for public discourse; yet,

these objections clearly benefit certain individuals (e.g., the

perpetrators of abuse) at the expense of others (e.g., the abused).

Perhaps those issues should be precisely the issues that receive the

spotlight in the public sphere; and, perhaps those issues should be

precisely the issues that are discussed in public school classrooms.

If issues that are important to women are to be deliberated within

our democracy, then these issues must be recognized, first and

foremost, as matters of public import (even when others may object

that these issues are only matters for private or domestic

deliberation).

Incorporating Epistemological Pluralism Within the

Democratic Classroom Without question, one of the challenges that all educators face

involves deciding which topics of discussion are appropriate for

classroom discussion (as well as deciding how such topics should

be discussed). According to Hess (2009), in order for students to

learn how to democratically deliberate, students must, above all,

have the opportunity to talk about controversial issues:

When schools fail to teach young people how to engage with

controversial political issues, or worse, suppress, ignore, or

deny the important role of controversial issues in the

curriculum, they send a host of dangerous and wrongheaded

messages…[including] that people in the United States and the

larger world fundamentally agree on the nature of the public

good and how it can be fostered. (pp. 5-6)

78

An approach to education that does not embrace controversy in

the classroom, Hess argued, enables students only to reproduce

society as defined by others and prevents individuals from working

together democratically to transform the society: “controversies

about the nature of the public good and how to achieve it, along

with how to mediate among competing democratic values, are

intrinsic parts of democracy. If there is no controversy, there is no

democracy” (p. 162). Indeed, although topics such as gender

harassment and the gender pay gap may be contentious, these

topics of gender equity are precisely the topics about which

students must learn to deliberate since they are critical to the nature

of our democracy. The fact that these issues are, at times, sensitive

and contentious subjects only underscores how they are, indeed,

topics that are vital for our democratic society to address without

hesitation.

Even if an educator wants students to discuss controversial

topics, the challenge lies in establishing the classroom discourse

such that it allows for epistemological pluralism. Which voices

should be heard? How can the educator determine whether or not

a certain voice is being repressive? “This is what makes the

teaching of controversial issues so controversial” (Hess, 2009, p.

114).

Kunzman (2006) offered a solution by suggesting that educators

and students value a “respect for particularity – for what people

count as most significant about themselves – [which] suggests the

need for seeing others in part as they see themselves” (p. 38).

Arguing from this model, the skills required for deliberation within

a democratic society can only be cultivated through an exploration

of contrasting and even controversial ethical frameworks.

Kunzman bemoaned the fact that “public schools…frequently

deny or ignore these textures of students’ lives, thereby denying

students the crucial learning opportunity to connect their

necessarily limited experiences to broader ethical ideas and social

concerns” (p. 66). Like Hess, Kunzman suggested that students

deliberate about controversial issues precisely because they are

controversial. Additionally, the frameworks of thinking and

knowing that are utilized during these deliberations may,

themselves, be controversial. For example, some students may

choose to label feministic epistemology as “irrational.” The

educator must be aware that such labeling (i.e., “irrational,”

79

“illogical,” “emotional”) may represent an attempt to minimize and

marginalize the particular epistemology being utilized within the

discussion. When the educator allows (and encourages)

epistemological pluralism to flourish in the classroom (admittedly

a nontrivial and ambitious pedagogical task), educators provide

students with the opportunity to prepare for authentic democratic

participation within the larger society.

Kunzman (2006) continued the argument in this way:

As students explore the way a particular religion envisions strict

gender roles…[students] should strive to understand and

appreciate what value those boundaries hold in that religion

and its community of adherents…The goal here is not to change

students’ beliefs but to widen their appreciation for ways of life

different than their own. (p. 61)

In other words, genuine democratic citizenship requires the

ability to acknowledge and successfully navigate the boundary

between the public and the private spheres of life (while permitting

the existence of both). Religious, ethical, and political frameworks

have important roles in public spaces, and, in this way, adherents

to a particular set of values might serve as particularly powerful

models of civic virtue when they demonstrate that they are able to

live in “multiple worlds of meaning” (Kunzman, 2006, p. 111).

Such individuals would be able to adhere to their worldviews while

simultaneously discovering, acknowledging, and legitimizing the

worldviews of others. Students who are able to engage in

deliberative discourse will learn how to confirm their own

identities while simultaneously recognizing their obligations to the

greater public sphere.

It is important to note that Kunzman was not suggesting that

citizens demarcate their public and private lives and commitments;

rather, Kunzman argued that the private plays a role in the public,

and vice versa. Hence, democratic citizens must be willing to

engage in deliberative discourse around private matters, i.e.,

matters that citizens find important. No citizen in a democratic

society has the right to marginalize a given topic from the public

sphere. Indeed, perhaps one of the reasons that the wellbeing of

female students, female teachers, and female educational leaders

suffers all too often is because the concerns of these students,

80

teachers, and leaders are relegated as private matters unimportant

and inappropriate for public discussion. Hence, some concerns are

never addressed and some voices are never heard. Recognizing that

private life plays a role in the public sphere – one of the central

tenets of feminism and feminist epistemology (Butler, 1990;

Fraser, 1997; Harding, 2006) – may be critical to correcting this

trend in education.

When public and private ways of knowing in the classroom

become acceptable, schools can become places where students are

prepared for the reality of epistemological pluralism; inversely, if

multiple worlds of meaning are not invited into the public

classroom – i.e., if the reality of epistemological pluralism is

ignored – then students may remain convinced that there is only

one legitimate way of knowing.

Conclusion

My argument in this conceptual essay has been that educators who

envision schools as moral learning communities must begin with

epistemological pluralism as a foundational postulate for all of the

curriculum and instruction that takes place within those schools.

Without acknowledging that there are multiple ways of knowing

the world, hierarchies of inequality will only be reinforced by the

education that students receive. This is true for all marginalized

groups, but it is especially true in the context of feminism and

feminist epistemology. Unless life experience, affect, social

reality, and political power are incorporated into the

epistemologies that are promoted within public spaces, female

students, female teachers, and female educational leaders may

continue to feel marginalized given that their way of knowing the

world is not being recognized, and, in some cases, actively being

delegitimized (Greene, 1993).

Although this essay has focused on democratic participation in

the public school classroom, there are implications for the teacher

education classroom as well. Specifically, one might choose to

imagine teacher education as a democratic space where multiple

ways of knowing are encouraged. Current discourses, however,

seem to militate against this possibility. Rather than encouraging

preservice teachers to question, criticize, and/or transform what it

means to be a teacher, preservice teachers are explicitly

encouraged to conform to the one professional way of being a

81

teacher (Ball & Forzani, 2009). Some scholars of teacher education

are adamant that there exists a definitive set of codified knowledge

required for teaching and that preservice teachers must acquire this

knowledge during their teacher preparation in order for these

novice teachers to be successful (Sturmer, Könings, & Seidel,

2012). Early-career teachers may feel an intense pressure to

perform a specific role (Colley, James, & Diment, 2007; Jephcote

& Salisbury, 2009) and may be hesitant to articulate the reality of

their emotional labor (Chen & Kristjansson, 2011; Zembylas &

McGlynn, 2012). If teacher educators entertain the theoretical

claims of feminist epistemology, teacher educators may begin to

revise their curriculum and instruction such that it recognizes and

legitimizes alternative ways of thinking about and knowing about

teaching. In turn, this would, potentially, cultivate a generation of

early-career teachers that has an appreciation for the role of

epistemological pluralism within the context of a democratic

society.

A democracy is expected to take the voice of each of its citizens

seriously when the collective group engages in deliberative

decision-making. A moral and democratic system of education that

aims to prepare students and teachers for democratic participation

should encourage the incorporation of all worldviews and all

voices. Preparing students for democracy entails equipping them

with opportunities to engage critically with a variety of different –

and potentially controversial – conceptions of knowledge.

Teaching students to ignore epistemologies that do not align with

their own is inimical to the aims of democratic education. Creating

classrooms where students and teachers learn to recognize and

legitimize different ways of knowing the world will further the role

that schools play in developing democratic citizens.

References

Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Althof, W., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2006). Moral education and character

education: Their relationship and roles in citizenship education. Journal

of Moral Education, 35(4), 495-518.

Anderson, G. L. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing

the discourse of participatory reforms in education. American

Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 571-603.

82

Applebaum, B. (2008). "Doesn't my experience count?" White students,

the authority of experience and social justice pedagogy. Race Ethnicity

and Education, 11(4), 405-414.

Bacia, E., & Ittel, A. (2017). Education to thrive in a heterogeneous and

democratic society: A task for citizenship and character education?

Results of case studies in three Berlin schools. Journal of Social

Science Education, 16(3), 40-51.

Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the

challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5),

497-511.

Bell, C., & Chase, S. (1993). The under-representation of women in

school leadership. In C. Marshall (Ed.), The new politics of race and

gender (pp. 141-154). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Berlin, I. (2002). Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press.

Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership:

Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2),

142-163.

Bleier, R. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its

theories on women. New York, NY: Pergamon.

Bohman, J. (2012). Domination, epistemic injustice, and Republican

epistemology. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 175-187.

Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of

learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of

identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Caron, C. (2011). Getting girls and teens into the vocabularies of

citizenship. Girlhood Studies, 4(2), 70-91.

Chen, Y., & Kristjansson, K. (2011). Private feelings, public

expressions: Professional jealousy and the moral practice of teaching.

Journal of Moral Education, 40(3), 349-358.

Coady, D. (2010). Two concepts of epistemic injustice. Episteme, 7,

101-113.

83

Colley, H., James, D., & Diment, K. (2007). Unbecoming teachers:

Towards a more dynamic notion of professional participation. Journal

of Education Policy, 22(2), 173-193.

Dillabough, J. (1999). Gender politics and conceptions of the modern

teacher: Women, identity, and professionalism. British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 20(3), 373-394.

Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of

silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236-257.

Fendler, L. (2003). Reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences

and political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16-25.

Fine, M. (2003). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The

missing discourse of desire. In M. Fine & L. Weis (Eds.), Silenced

voices and extraordinary conversations (pp. 38-67). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the

"Postsocialist" condition. New York: Routledge.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of

knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goodlad, J. I., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. J. (2004). Education

for everyone: Agenda for education in a democracy. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (Eds.). (1990). The moral

dimensions of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, M. (1993). Diversity and inclusion: Toward a curriculum for

human beings. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 211-221.

Grogan, M. (2008). The short tenure of a woman superintendent: A

clash of gender and politics. Journal of School Leadership, 18(6), 634-

660.

Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., &

Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional

perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055-2100.

Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

84

Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and

postcolonial epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press.

Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic

power of discussion. New York: Routledge.

Jephcote, M., & Salisbury, J. (2009). Further education teachers'

accounts of their professional identities. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 25(7), 966-972.

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-

efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and

job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741-756.

Kunzman, R. (2006). Grappling with the good: Talking about religion

and morality in public schools. Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press.

Labaree, D. F. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of

teaching: A geneology of the movement to professionalize teaching.

Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 123-154.

Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value free? New York, NY: Routledge.

Mertz, N., & McNeely, S. R. (1998). Women on the job: A study of

female high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly,

34(2), 196-222.

Salvano-Pardieu, V., Fontaine, R., Bouazzaoui, B., & Florer, F. (2009).

Teachers' sanction in the classroom: Effect of age, experience, gender

and academic context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1-11.

Schiebinger, L. (1989). The mind has no sex? Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Schuitema, J., Radstake, H., van de Pol, J., & Veugelers, W. (2018).

Guiding classroom discussions for democratic citizenship education.

Educational Studies, 44(4), 377-407.

Scott, J. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical Inquiry, 17, 773-

797.

Segall, A. (2002). Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as

text. New York: Peter Lang.

Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The

pedagogy of content / the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 20, 489-504.

85

Spanier, B. (1995). Im/partial science: Gender ideology in molecular

biology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Sturmer, K., Könings, K. D., & Seidel, T. (2012). Declarative

knowledge and professional vision in teacher education: Effect of

courses in teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 83(3), 467-483.

Thomas, B. R. (1990). The school as a moral learning community. In J.

I. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of

teaching (pp. 266-295). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thornberg, R. (2006). Hushing as a moral dilemma in the classroom.

Journal of Moral Education, 35(1), 89-104.

Zembylas, M., & McGlynn, C. (2012). Discomforting pedagogies:

Emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities.

British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 41-59.

— AUTHOR BIOS —

87

AUTHOR BIOS

Rejoice Akapame is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Education at the University of Washington Bothell. She has a joint

appointment between the schools of Educational Studies and

STEM and teaches both mathematics and mathematics education

courses. Her research interests in mathematical modeling;

technology use in K-16 mathematics classrooms; supporting

mathematics learning for all learners, particularly English

Language Learners (ELLs) and equity issues in mathematics

education.

Robin Angotti is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at the

University of Washington Bothell. She teaches mathematics

courses in the Division of Mathematics and Engineering in the

School of STEM. Her research interests are in statistics education,

technology, and issues of equity in mathematics education.

Mary DeBey is a faculty member in the Early Childhood

Education Program at Brooklyn College where she encourages and

guides student teachers in developing a deep understanding of

themselves as teaching practitioners. Prior to coming to Brooklyn,

she developed and directed the Center for Creative Teaching at

Bennington College and as a faculty member at Hudson Valley

Community College she developed the World’s Children Center.

Dr. DeBey is currently involved in the development of the Sir Syed

Children Schools in Uttar Pradesh India where she is researching

early childhood teacher development as it relates to the India

Education Policy 2019.

Tricia Niesz is an associate professor of Cultural Foundations of

Education in the College of Education, Health, and Human

Services at Kent State University. Her research focuses on

educators’ participation in social movements and professional

movements promoting equity and social justice. She is particularly

interested in how these movements generate knowledge, learning,

identities, and school change. Over the past few years, she has

researched educational change efforts promoted by activist

educators in the U.S. and South India. Her recent work has been

88

published in Teachers College Record, Anthropology & Education

Quarterly, and the Journal of Educational Change.

Karen Rosenberg directs the Teaching and Learning Center, the

Quantitative Skills Center, and the Writing Communication Center

at the University of Washington Bothell. She teaches writing and

gender studies courses and her research interests are in

intersectional feminist pedagogy and equity in education.

Shaheen Usmani directs the Early Childhood India Project at

Brooklyn College in New York where she is also an Adjunct

Professor in both the Secondary Education Science and the Early

Childhood Education Programs. She has guest lectured at the Asia-

Pacific Institute in New Delhi and John Hopkins and Columbia

Universities in the U.S. Dr. Usmani is currently involved in

conducting evaluations, training programs and workshops

throughout India. She develops high-quality programs for young

children who are marginalized including those with disabilities.

Her diverse teaching and research experiences inform her

curriculum and pedagogical choices which promote curiosity,

active participation and collaboration.

Aaron S. Zimmerman is an Assistant Professor in the Department

of Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education at Texas

Tech University. He graduated with his PhD from Michigan State

University in 2016. He is interested in the lived experience of

early-career teachers and in the organizational conditions that

support collaboration amongst teacher educators.

MISSION STATEMENTThe National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) leads by exampleas it strives to improve simultaneously the quality of education for thoughtfulparticipation in a democracy and the quality of the preparation of educators. TheNNER works through partnerships among P-12 schools, institutions of highereducation, and communities. Members of the Network agree on a four-partmission to advance Education in Democracy, which is as follows:

• provide access to knowledge for all children (“equity and excellence”);• educate the young for thoughtful participation in a social and political

democracy (“enculturation”);• base teaching on knowledge of the subjects taught, established principles

of learning, and sensitivity to the unique potential of learners (“nurturingpedagogy”); and

• take responsibility for improving the conditions for learning inP-12 schools, institutions of higher education and communities(“stewardship”).

ENABLING ACTIONSMembers of the Network assert that quality schooling for a democracyand quality preparation of educators can best be accomplished by sharingresponsibility for the following actions:

• engaging university faculty in the arts and sciences, education, publicschools, and community members as equal partners collectivelyresponsible for the Agenda;

• promoting and including partnership settings nationally andinternationally that together represent urban, suburban, and ruralcommunities, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse public schooland university students, and a broad range of public and private teachereducation institutions of varying sizes and missions;

• inquiring into and conducting research pertinent to educational practicesand the renewal of public schools and the education of educators;

• proposing and monitoring federal, state and local policy that supports theimplementing the Agenda for Education in a Democracy;

• providing opportunities for professional and leadership development forparticipants in NNER settings.